Rituals, Ruins, Reckoning and the Roots of Terror: Unearthing the Magic and Madness of Folk Horror.

We don’t go back, because if we go back, we enter a realm of superstition and madness! -Adam Scovell.

“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” – Søren Kierkegaard

Dream the myth onward and give it modern dress -Jung

As Helena P. Blavatsky suggested —No myth is wholesale fable; even fanciful fables hold a grain of truth.

Horror is a disruption of the way you think things should go- horror begins when the world stops behaving the way we believe it should. When the familiar world breaks its contract with us – when people, places, patterns, and events no longer appear to be as they seem. – jo gabriel

INTO THE DARK AND DREADFUL WOODS—Where Folklore Turns Ferally: A Journey Through Folk Horror -From Ancient Ritual to Modern Nightmare

Watching Kier-La Janisse’s Woodlands Dark and Days Bewitched: A History of Folk Horror (2021) cracked something open in me, a mix of awe and recognition. Janisse’s monumental exploration of folk horror doesn’t just teach you about a cinematic mode, which the term may be more apt than calling folk horror a subgenre; it feels like wandering through a haunted library of collective memory, where every story whispers about what we’ve buried and what refuses to stay down. Folk horror is all about that unsettling tension between the old ways and the modern mind, the rural against the urban, nature against reason, the living against what still stirs beneath the soil, dripped like midnight sap from the bones of the land or old wounds that still bleed.

In the play Penda’s Fen (1974), writer David Rudkin gives folk horror one of its most searching principles when the visionary King Penda calls for “our sacred demon of ungovernableness.” His blessing that Stephen become “dark, true, impure and dissonant” rejects the fantasy of a pure, obedient, respectable England, asking instead that he recognize the repressed forces beneath it—sexuality, pagan memory, violence, desire, doubt, and historical conflict, rather than deny it. It applies to folk horror by using England’s buried pagan past and haunted landscape to expose and reject the false purity and conformity of modern authority.

Hauntology names this unsettling sense and sets an atmosphere around the past’s ghostly persistence: the present has failed to detach itself cleanly from the past, the past survives, and something buried continues to exert pressure on contemporary life.

Modern classic …Midsommar. Photograph: A24/Allstar

Coined by Jacques Derrida in Specters of Marx and later developed in cultural criticism by writers including Mark Fisher, the term ‘hauntology describes not simply ‘ghosts’ but the disturbing persistence of what should have disappeared; what lingers after it should be gone—abandoned beliefs, the repressed, colonial violence, unresolved and buried histories, discarded customs, vanished or lost communities, obsolete forms of culture, and even futures that were promised but never arrived. Its question is quieter, though no less unsettling: why does this past still have such power over the present? It’s not necessarily about literal ghosts; it describes the eerie feeling that time has failed to move cleanly forward.

It may include explicitly – witches, cults, sacrifice, supernatural forces, or even a sacrificial god or deities whose authority persists beneath the surface of modern life.

It may have no monster at all; the dread can arise from memory, nostalgia, loss, or temporal dislocation (for example, in Picnic at Hanging Rock 1975)  —where the past never quite stays in the past, and the present begins to feel shaped by something older, stranger, and unresolved -the past, present, and future no longer feel separate, orderly, or stable, as if they have begun to bleed into one another and time feels displaced, repetitive, haunted, or out of joint.

Nigel Kneale, The Stone Tape, BBC, aired 1972

It asks: What ancient force survives here? It asks: Why does this past feel unfinished—and why is it still affecting us? Hauntology gives the folk-horror mode or subgenre a useful language for its particular sense of time- the time that has not passed; it describes the sensation: not simply the survival of old beliefs or rituals, but the uneasy feeling that the past has never properly left.

Peter Weir’s Picnic at Hanging Rock 1975: Temporal dislocation through colonial order meeting an ancient landscape.

In folk horror, the present is “haunted”: a remnant, an afterimage, clings to a field, a village rite, a standing stone, an old song, a ruined church, a bonfire, a May Day procession, a black goat, a strange local custom, a deceptively festive gathering, a tenement hallway, a suburban home, or even a mirror, a forgotten recording, or an old book found in the cellar, making the familiar feel as though it remembers something we do not. These places and objects carry meanings that precede and exceed the outsider who encounters them.

In his 2017 book Folk Horror: Hours Dreadful and Things Strange, Scovell describes a “folk horror chain” built from four connected elements: landscape, isolation, a skewed belief system, and a final “happening” or summoning.

Sam Raimi’s film The Evil Dead 1981 does not follow this pattern in the most traditional way; there is no insular village or community ritual at its center, but it does bend the formula into something leaner, meaner, and considerably bloodier. The remote woods create the landscape; the collapsed bridge turns that setting into a trap; and the skin-bound Book of the Dead and its recorded incantations preserve a buried belief system that the visitors/outsiders unknowingly bring back to life. When they play the tape, the film reaches Scovell’s final link: a supernatural happening that overtakes the cabin, the forest, and eventually the bodies of the people inside it.

Scovell describes landscape as something that isolates characters from the ordinary social world, producing more of a hidden logic at odds with the familiar order of things, and draws them into older, stranger beliefs that end in violence or a supernatural event. That ‘folk horror chain’ fits neatly with Raimi’s The Evil Dead 1981: the remote cabin, hostile woods, ancient text, and the demonic possession it unleashes.

The Evil Dead 1981 cabin: At the edge of an ancient wooded evil, the cabin offers no true refuge; it is the confined threshold where the outside force enters, isolates, and consumes the people inside, and there’s no way back.

The terror lies not only in the possibility that an ancient force has survived, but in the realization that the past remains unfinished: it is still shaping bodies, beliefs, social relationships, and ideas of belonging. And when it makes familiar spaces seem to remember what its characters cannot yet know, it is too late to escape the story those spaces have been keeping alive.

Folk horror returns us to this unruly underside of national identity: a hauntological landscape in which the older world beneath the modern one is never wholly dead, its songs, customs, a legacy of violence, and forbidden desires still murmuring through all these traces and places.

Alan Clarke’s 1974 television film, Penda’s Fen

Penda’s Fen (broadcast in 1974, written by David Rudkin and directed by Alan Clarke) may not be the first film people reach for when they talk about folk horror, but I think it absolutely belongs in the conversation. It has none of the genre’s more familiar machinery: no isolated village turning on a stranger, no masked procession, no final sacrifice staged around a bonfire. What it does have is the familiar folk horror pull of an old landscape and the uneasy feeling that the version of England Stephen has been taught to love is only part of the story.

The past in Penda’s Fen is not some neat evil that can be uncovered and defeated. It keeps breaking through in the hills, in pre-Christian history, in Stephen’s sexuality, religious doubt, national identity that culture prefers to keep out of sight, and in the questions he begins to ask about faith and belonging. That is why the play feels so important to folk horror. It’s not a simple conflict between good and evil. It is not really about a community keeping an old ritual alive; it is about the things a nation tries to tidy away. It works toward the collapse of purity, desire, nationalism, enforced masculinity, religious conformity, contradiction, violence, and doubt, all coming back into view. The BFI places it alongside the folk-horror and folkloric television work that emerged in the late 1960s and 1970s, but what stays with me is how it turns the English pre-Christian past and its landscape into a challenge to the clean, proper version of Englishness Stephen has inherited.

Together, all these things make the familiar uncanny. We often register its persistence through ritual, that ‘landscape’, symbology, and collective memories that linger like ghosts within the present, making familiar places feel charged with that particular reckoning still undone and often an unspeakable legacy.

It all becomes unsettling because it appears to carry an unfinished history into the present. The mode—or subgenre, if that term feels more accurate when you say it- asks not only what ancient force survives, but why that past continues to structure contemporary life. The effect is often this: you look at something ordinary and, all of a sudden, you do not recognize it.

Folk horror is not concerned only with surface scares or ancient rituals. It is interested in the way isolated communities are shaped by inherited customs, collective fears, and sacred prohibitions that can seem irrational from the outside but carry real force within the group.

The films considered here in this essay demonstrate that this haunting need not be limited to an explicitly ancient or pagan past. The Wicker Man 1973 locates it in a revived agrarian religion whose rituals transform Summerisle into a sealed world of sacrificial continuity; Midsommar 2019 reconfigures that model through a contemporary commune that turns grief and emotional belonging into instruments of ritual seduction, initiation, conversion, and control; and Get Out 2017 relocates folk-horror logic to privileged, suspiciously ‘liberal’ America, where racial history persists through the seemingly polite face of doctors, hypnosis, and surgical ‘innovation’, fetishization, ownership, co-optation, and consumption. Together, the films suggest that folk horror’s most enduring specter is not paganism itself, but the recurring ability of communities to disguise violence as tradition, renewal, care, or progress.

In the evolution of Folk Horror in cinema, Chad Crawford Kinkle’s Jug Face (2013) would return to sacrificial logic, depicting an isolated community whose promise of protection depends on surrendering its own people to a sacred pit. Set in an isolated Southern backwoods community in the modern era, Jug Face presents a sacrificial order that has survived alongside the outside world rather than belonging to a safely distant past.

Its deepest horror lies not simply in the power beneath the ground, or ‘the pit,’ but in a social order that has made killing a neighbor an obligation to everyone else. The supernatural threat is real, but the social horror is the conversion of that threat into communal law: someone must die so that everyone else can continue calling the practice protection. It’s a necessary price of collective security.

Folk horror is often about the gulf between what seems familiar and what lies beneath it, between what is imagined and what is real. It does not simply frighten us with phantasms, specters, apparitions, wraiths, curses, or supernatural happenings, nor does it only live or seep in through the soil, the trees, and the old superstitions that cling stubbornly to remote villages.

Some folk-horror stories still unfold in isolated places, where the outside world feels like a distant rumor and local customs carry their own threatening logic, twisted codes, whether pagan rites, occult whispers, or time-worn rituals that blur belief into menace. But the genre can also thrive in modern spaces: suburban homes, institutions, affluent estates, housing blocks, and close-knit communities that make exclusion or cruelty seem natural.

Its visual set pieces do more than decorate those worlds; they make their hidden beliefs visible -physically. A standing stone, a harvest ceremony, a bonfire, a ruined church, or a lone figure in an open field can signal that we have crossed into a place governed by older rules. The landscape is never merely background. It holds a community’s memory and the rituals it has learned to protect or conceal.

In folk horror, the most striking ritual tableaux don’t simply lend a place its uncanny look; they give its beliefs a body, something the characters can gather around, enter, or be offered up to. They show us how belief has been built into ordinary life: where people gather, what they keep, which places they avoid, and what they’re prepared to do when a ritual calls for it. A standing stone or a bonfire matters less as an eerie image on its own than as a clue to the rules everyone seems to know except the newcomer or outsider. The setting begins to feel uneasy because it isn’t just holding a secret; people have arranged their lives around it

What makes folk horror unsettling is not always the supernatural. It is the moment an outsider discovers that a place, a family, or a community is governed by rules they do not understand and cannot easily escape. The collision of rigid, archaic worldviews with the modern, or with the outsider, reveals or exposes that fear is often brewed as much from conviction as from curses. Folk horror may be spun from cultural anxiety, or begin in the wild, dark heart of nature, amid secret ceremonies and shadowed glances, where dread gathers and grows, but it does not end there: its real power lies in the way those forces enter the mind, into an inner world of fear, unsettling memory, identity, desire, coercion and the very sense of what is real.

Rather than treating the past as a fixed pagan relic, the old rites may remain, but so can newer forms of power: class, gender, reproductive control, environmental damage, religious institutions, radicalized histories, medicine, wealth, racial appropriation, therapy, social conformity, gentrification, or the seductive promise of belonging. Now, folk horror is less about the past returning unchanged than about the past’s habits of fear and control finding new places to live.

Here, the forest becomes psychological as well as physical. The forest stops being just a place and becomes something inside us, too. A crowded street can make you feel as alone and as isolating as a moor; a suburban home can preserve and hold onto its own rites of silence, obedience, reverence, and sacrifice. Folk horror does not vanish when it leaves the village; it changes shape.

The folk tradition evolves and adapts rather than disappears—its gods, monsters, and ceremonies come back through the fears of modern life; they re-emerge through the anxieties of the world we live in now. What used to wait beyond the village boundary might now be waiting behind the front door, at the end of the block, or within us – the feeling that, no matter how modern we become, the past never entirely lets us go, and the old beliefs, even with all that progress, have never fully driven the past away.

In film, story often follows what can be most powerfully seen. Every aesthetic choice should lead the way: how a ritual fire burns, how a village appears through mist, how a face is held in silence; it all turns the act of retelling folklore into something visual, sensorial, newly felt and irrevocably transformed: a descent into the tangled roots of fear, culture, and landscape. Cinema does not simply illustrate old stories; it gives them new bodies, new spaces, and new ways of haunting the present. In this sense, the film itself can become folklore, or folk horror: a cinematic mode that thrives in the space between cultural dreaming and psychological unease.

The Babadook 2014 – starring Essie Davis and Samuel Vanek.

At that point, folk horror is no longer just about an isolated setting. The place begins to work on the people inside it—shaping their fears, decisions, memories, and sense of what is real.

If there is a more academic word for that, it is psychogeographic: horror in which the landscape gets inside the mind. Psychogeography is a useful way of describing how a place can get under people’s skin—how a setting affects what they feel and believe. Its landscapes are never passive backdrops, but psychologically charged spaces that influence what characters see, remember, and fear. In folk horror, it makes places feel active rather than atmospheric scenery. A forest, coastline, village, or ruined estate does not simply sit behind the action; it presses on the characters, making them feel isolated and cut off, watched, unsettled, disoriented, or pulled toward a past they do not fully understand. It can hold traces of earlier violence or faith. The land itself can be a psychologically charged “character” that shapes how people perceive the world, confront trauma, and reckon with history.

In this sense, folk horror turns a place into a kind of memory, one that its characters may not fully understand until it begins to shape their choices for them.

Cinema does not merely borrow folklore; it makes folklore visual; landscapes actively rearrange people’s sense of reality; isolation hardens belief; and the genre’s echoes of old fears can move from woods and villages into cities and suburbs.

Swamps and marshlands show up in several folk-horror or folk-horror-adjacent films, especially in Southern Gothic and regional American horror. They work well because they are naturally liminal spaces: neither firm land nor open water, difficult to map, full of decay, and easily imagined as holding old secrets. In these landscapes, old traditions, communal memory, profane rhythms, and buried violence seem to cling to the mud and water, along with the primal fears and desires those earlier worlds have left behind.

As in the Arkansas landscape of The Legend of Boggy Creek 1972 and the Louisiana folk-horror/Southern Gothic tradition of films like The Skeleton Key 2005 and Eve’s Bayou 1997, the latter is more Southern Gothic drama than outright horror, but its folk practices, visions, family secrets, and swamp atmosphere make it very useful for an essay about folklore and haunted regional memory.

Written and directed by Kasi Lemmons, Eve’s Bayou 1997) stars Journee Smollett and Diahann Carroll.

Communities rooted in these places build their own rules around that history: sacred prohibitions, shared rituals, collective anxieties, and sometimes a kind of group hysteria that can make cruelty feel necessary or even holy. In that kind of world, the past is not simply remembered; it becomes a living pressure, deciding what must be feared, what must be protected, and who belongs and who can be sacrificed for the community to endure.

Adam Scovell’s “folk horror chain” gives this pattern a useful structure. Landscape creates the conditions in which isolation deepens; isolation lets unusual belief systems take hold and harden; and those beliefs eventually lead to a final ritual, an act of violence, or a supernatural “happening” that feels both shocking and, by that point, disturbingly inevitable.

The Wicker Man 1973 makes that final “happening” visible not as a private act, but as communal performance. When you think of The Wicker Man, you hear the island’s songs, watch the maypole dance, the animal-masked procession, and the final wicker effigy create a bright, communal spectacle that becomes steadily more disturbing because everyone seems to understand the ritual except the outsider. By the time the wicker effigy burns against the open sky, the film has transformed familiar images of rural festivity into the visible machinery of communal sacrifice.

Consider The Blood on Satan’s Claw 1971, where empty fields, tangled woods, and the discovery of something unnatural in the earth turn the countryside itself into the source of something dark closing in, something evil. These films use pageantry and place to let dread build in plain sight, long before the horror is fully revealed.

The genre’s migration is not simply a matter of replacing the countryside with the city; folk horror does not remain safely buried in the soil or confined to one kind of landscape; it follows the road outward: moving into urban and suburban spaces, those forces do not disappear; they lose their most recognizable signs. Each setting gives the genre a different pressure point.

Folklore may no longer announce itself through a village elder or a stone circle. Instead, it is carried through private rituals, neighborhood codes, inherited prejudices, and institutions whose authority and quiet violence make their beliefs seem ordinary. From the isolated hamlet to the industrial town, from the country house to the suburban cul-de-sac, from the ancient grove to the apartment block and neon-lit street. The old world is not erased by modernity; so much as bury it beneath concrete, traffic, modern routines, and the ordinary spaces of everyday life.

Candyman 1992 starring Kasi Lemmons and Virginia Madsen.

What changes is not the genre’s underlying fear, but its setting and how it evolves as a form of power. In contemporary folk horror, the old rite is often no longer a public ceremony performed in a field. The old ways do not survive merely as relics; they reappear as patterns of coercion and control, producing an altered moral order in which exploitation can seem normal, necessary, or even benevolent. The final violent or uncanny revelation or eruption does not create that order so much as reveal it. Folk horror makes people confront a local order. Whether characters are outsiders, insiders, estranged from their own community – whose logic is difficult to understand, challenge, or escape- drawn in, shut out, or simply trapped, the horror begins when the rules of the world around them can no longer be trusted.

Cinema gives folklore a visual, repeatable body: the burning wicker effigy, the masked procession, the slow turning of the soil that reveals old bones, or a fleeting shadow passing across a face at the moment fear and recognition collide.

These images are not illustrations of folklore so much as its afterlife: they give old fears a body, a rhythm, and a way of returning. They preserve and remake the fears, desires, and inherited memories that folklore carries. —an art form able to give old anxieties a body, a sound, and a sequence of images that we carry with us.

Folklore thrives on memory, and cinema is memory made stone. A local myth may once have warned people against wandering too far into the woods after dark; the folk horror film lets us see what happens when you do.

In folk horror, terror is never abstract; it is made local. It grows from a particular place: where the environment is made tangible through its streets or open land, the habits people live by, the history they would rather leave buried, and the strange feeling that one corner of the world is holding onto something. Those details carry on.

In its later forms, as folk horror moves beyond its classic British landscapes, it does not abandon the force of place; it redistributes it, appearing wherever a place can hold its own habits, pressures, and buried logic, each giving folklore a different way to surface. The genre becomes a language of dread that can travel far beyond its point of origin.

In muddy, strangling woods and sacrificial pits, schools, academies, and other enclosed institutions, those swamps and bayous, juke joints, housing projects, and suburbs. Filmmakers working with both expansive visions and stripped-down means turn local material into a more widely felt unease, allowing each setting to shape the particular form that dread takes.

Forests, villages, standing stones, and fields lead naturally toward The Wicker Man, The Blood on Satan’s Claw, and A Field in England. Along the coast, Whistle and I’ll Come to You, Night Tide, Messiah of Evil, and The Lighthouse turn the shoreline—its distancing vantage point opening onto vast exposure—into a threshold between isolation and the unknown.

Swamps and marshlands bring folk horror as well as the Southern Gothic territory in works such as Strangler of the Swamp 1946, The Legend of Boggy Creek 1972, and The Skeleton Key, released in 2005, set in the Louisiana bayou country, where regional history, spiritual unease, and local belief seep into the landscape.

The ruined estate in Eye of the Devil 1966 redirects that unease toward inherited privilege, secrecy, and decay. In urban and suburban works—including Get Out 2017, Bernard Rose’s 1992 Candyman, Nia DaCosta’s 2021 sequel Candyman, and Luca Guadagnino’s 2018 Suspiria—the cul-de-sac, apartment block, and neon-lit city street become new sites of enclosure, ritual, and collective fear, with their connection to Cabrini-Green, gentrification, racialized urban history, and the past imposing on the present. In Suspiria, the dance academy stands in the shadow of the Berlin Wall, its private rites unfolding in a city already divided against itself.

What changes is not the genre’s underlying fear, but how it evolves as a form of power. In contemporary folk horror, the old rite is often no longer a public ceremony performed in a field. The old ways do not survive merely as relics; they reappear as patterns of control, producing altered moral orders in which exploitation can seem normal, necessary, or even benevolent. The final violent or uncanny event does not create that order so much as reveal it.

Folk horror keeps finding new life through filmmakers with grand visions and bare-bones inventiveness alike—artists who can take one local story, one half-remembered warning, a story told in one town, or in one family or one patch of ground with a bad reputation and widen its reach without emptying it of place. What begins as someone else’s superstition becomes a universal unease and fascination: not because the story loses its specificity, but because its particular fears expose the structures, impulses, and vulnerabilities that travel with us.

The demon mask from Onibaba 1964.

Visual shorthand gives folk horror much of its power. The films are shaped by the logic of a nightmare; images that communicate a whole history or feeling before the film has to explain it. Folk horror will show us something slightly off—a room arranged too carefully, a recurring symbol, or a face held too long in silence – and we instinctively understand that there is a rule at work we have not been told. It can suggest an entire history of belief and threat without the film ever spelling it out.

That is where the logic of a nightmare comes in. Dreams do not always give us a clear cause and effect; they make us feel that something is wrong first, then leave us trying to catch up. In A Field in England 2013, a group of deserters crosses a mushroom or fairy ring, and the ordinary landscape begins to feel trapped, unstable, and hostile. The field does not need to announce what it is doing: the film’s stark black-and-white imagery, repetition, and disorientation make the land feel like an inescapable state of mind.

A Field in England does use black-and-white cinematography, repetition, hallucinogenic mushrooms, and deliberately disorienting editing/structure to make the field feel psychologically inescapable.

Folk horror is not one fixed thing: it can be a pagan sacrifice, a witch hunt, a curse in the soil, or a community whose traditions have become a little too sacred to question.

Films like Häxan (1922), Witchfinder General (1968), The Blood on Satan’s Claw (1971), The Devils (1971), The Witch (2015), and Midsommar 2019 all arrive at that dread from different directions, but each leaves its characters at the mercy of an older belief system—or the people determined to enforce it.

In films like The Wicker Man (1973) and Candyman (1992), folklore does not just warn; it immortalizes, giving dread shape, sound, and color. The vegetation, the costumes, the procession, the rituals, the graffiti-covered walls, and vivid urban decay- all the visual textures- become folklore’s new language.

Tony Todd: “They will say I have shed innocent blood,” a voice rises from the thick, golden murmur of the bees’ music, “What’s blood for, if not for shedding?”

By showing rather than telling, these films conjure myths that feel tangible, offering us a way to see the intangible and to carry it forward in our imagination. Folk horror is global and adaptable. But Cinema doesn’t just adapt folklore; it mutates it. Once a tale is filtered through the camera’s eye, edited for rhythm and beauty and dread, it becomes a new myth altogether, one that now belongs as much to cinema as it once did to oral tradition. Once a director builds the world of a folk tale on screen, it leaves the folkloric cycle and enters another form of storytelling. The camera doesn’t just record the myth; it creates its next life.

The common perception that folk horror originated solely in a British frame stems mainly from the prominence of what scholars call the “Unholy Trinity” of British folk horror films—Witchfinder General 1968, The Blood on Satan’s Claw 1971, and The Wicker Man 1973, which so vividly defined the genre in the late 1960s and early 1970s. These works first crystallized the genre’s mood of pastoral dread and moral decay. Whether it’s the sacrificial ecstasy of The Wicker Man or the earthy corruption of The Blood on Satan’s Claw, Piers Haggard’s film links folk horror’s key images to the social frictions of their times: Or the quiet despair of Witchfinder General, which captures, too realistically, Vincent Price’s calculating and sadistic portrayal of Matthew Hopkins. These films feel like glimpses into dispatches from the hidden corners of our collective imagination and the pagan revivalism of the 1970s.

It is important to recognize that focusing solely on folk horror rooted in British genre cinema would miss the rich, parallel traditions flourishing across the world. Filmmakers worldwide have tapped into their own myths, rituals, psychological undercurrents, mental reverberations, and landscapes to tell stories that are just as haunting and culturally resonant.

When you look beyond the British frame, folk horror reveals itself not as a neat, localized genre but as a sprawling global conversation about fear, folklore, and our deep connection to the land and the past. These films all circle something timeless and refuse to freeze folk horror in one particular world. Familiar tropes of isolated communities and archaic societal rules—hallmarks of classic British folk horror—are reworked to explore contemporary themes of sexuality, faith, and oppression, drawing from a deep and varied well of culture and myth that reaches far beyond its British roots.

Folk horror isn’t confined to a single place or tradition; it’s a pervasive, universal phenomenon that manifests across cultures and centuries, reflected in the diverse visions of filmmakers from Czech forest legends to Russian superstitions, Mexican archetypes, and Italian Catholicism’s collision with superstition. These films don’t just evoke fear; they invite us to confront the shadows cast by history, myth, and identity, crafting stories that feel both timeless and intensely personal, a cinematic reflection of a culture wrestling with its own folklore and collective memory.

Valerie and Her Week of Wonders 1970.

There are Australian haunting folk tales like Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975), directed by Peter Weir. While generally regarded as an Australian Gothic or mystery-fantasy film, it also fits comfortably within the folk-horror sensibility. It doesn’t overtly feature the supernatural, but it does embody the atmosphere and themes that define folk horror—mystic landscapes, colonial unease, and the uncanny merging of nature and psyche.

Lokis. Rokopis profesora Wittembacha or Lokis: A Manuscript of Professor Wittembach, Janusz Majewski’s Polish folk-horror film set in nineteenth-century Lithuania, is an eerie atmospheric classic that draws on local folklore surrounding Count Micha Szemioth, whom villagers suspect was born after his mother, a noblewoman, was attacked—and perhaps impregnated—by a bear.

Classic Japanese folk horror often centers on themes of women’s revenge, weaving haunting narratives where wronged female spirits or witches, like those in Kuroneko 1968, Onibaba 1964, and Kwaidan 1964, embody both sorrow and vengeance, reflecting deep cultural beliefs about injustice, the supernatural, and the enduring power of the feminine in folklore and cinema.

A major strand of classic Japanese ghost and folk-horror cinema often centers on or returns to the wronged woman whose suffering takes supernatural form. In films such as Kuroneko, Onibaba, and Masaki Kobayashi’s Kwaidan, female figures are bound to folk belief, desire, violence, grief, and retribution—though each film approaches those concerns differently. The vengeful female spirit, or onryo, is an especially enduring presence in Japanese horror, linking supernatural terror to women’s suffering and social injustice. Kuroneko clearly involves murdered women returning as avenging demon cats, and female onryo are a major recurring figure. But Onibaba is not chiefly a story of a vengeful female spirit, while Kwaidan is an anthology with several kinds of supernatural tales, not exclusively women’s revenge.

Czech folk horror films, with their blend of raw naturalism and deep roots in Slavic paganism and local superstition, explore themes of human vulnerability against nature’s mystique, the haunting pull of ancient rituals, and the fragile boundary between societal order and primal chaos. They showcase the distinct voice of Czech filmmakers during a politically turbulent era, but also contribute richly to the broader European folk horror. Films like Valerie and Her Week of Wonders (1970), a surreal, fairy-tale-like horror film, conjure puberty, sexuality, and witchcraft with a dreamlike aesthetic.

Jaromil Jireš’s Valerie and Her Week of Wonders (1970), a late Czechoslovak New Wave work, filters fairy-tale forms, local folklore, Catholic imagery, and what Criterion calls a “pagan lyricism” through surrealism. Its dreamlike world of eroticism, religious anxiety, and predatory authority explores Valerie’s sexual awakening and entrance into womanhood, blurring the boundary between childhood fantasy and adult menace.

Drawing on the Czech fairy-tale tradition, the film combines witchcraft, vampiric lore, a sinister priest, and a pagan-inflected coming-of-age symbolism; Valerie’s magical pearl earrings—emblems of femininity read by Criterion as flower-shaped emblems of femininity- repeatedly shield her from harm.

Czech and Czechoslovak folk-horror-adjacent cinema is not a defined genre, but films working in this register can reflect the political repression and cultural uncertainty that followed the Prague Spring. The broader Czechoslovak New Wave had flourished during the 1960s before the Soviet-led invasion of August 1968 ended the liberalizing period and ushered in “normalization.” Valerie was made and released during that early period.

In this context, Jireš uses the familiar fairy-tale form to create a relatively acceptable cultural surface for a surreal, erotic, Gothic encounter with folklore, while also offering an unsettling critique of authority and social norms under the fairy tale’s protective guise. This allowed him to approach sexuality, religion, and predatory and coercive power through cinematic fantasy: fairy tales could appear politically harmless to censors, even as Jireš lets darker pressures take shape around sexual coming of age, religious authority, and social power. The pohádka tradition was widely regarded as culturally safe and politically inoffensive under the Communist regime.

That framing does not mean the film escaped censorship altogether, nor did it evade official disapproval; after its October 1970 premiere, a review in the Communist Party newspaper Rudé právo condemned it as excessively arty, and Barrandov executives later prevented it from representing Czechoslovakia at the 1971 Sydney Film Festival.

Although Swedish director Ingmar Bergman’s The Seventh Seal (1957) is not usually classified as a conventional horror film, it can be understood as an important precursor to folk horror, with its existential dread laying the groundwork, along with its influential aesthetic.

Set in bleak, rural, plague-ravaged medieval Sweden, the film combines a harsh rural landscape with religious terror, superstition, witch-hunting, and the heavy literal presence of Death. Its unforgettable witch-burning sequence especially exposes how fear of disease and mortality can produce scapegoating and humanity’s instinct for collective violence. Bergman’s world moves uneasily between physical reality and bleak nightmare: the plague, penitential processions, belief in the Devil, and Death’s ominous figure all make the landscape feel spiritually as well as physically hostile. The film therefore anticipates later folk horror’s interest in folklore, ritual, fear, and communities attempting to make sense of catastrophe through belief.

The BFI has identified The Seventh Seal as part of Bergman’s influential contribution to folk-horror aesthetics, alongside The Virgin Spring (1960). Adam Scovell noted that Bergman nailed certain folk-horror elements long before the genre took off. The film’s “boundary […] ever shifting within his self-created hinterland, shrouded in twilight, with fear and fantasy in constant collision” describes Bergman’s world, where reality and nightmare blur, especially with the creeping plague, the ominous Grim Reaper, and medieval fears, which resonates strongly with folk horror’s dark heart.

The Literary Shadows Behind Folk Horror

Folk horror in literature and fiction forges new paths through the foundational landscapes of old legends, reinterpreting their timeless themes. They construct entirely new stories that resonate with the enduring echoes of ancient myths. Folk horror films adapted from these stories take those ancient, shadowy fears and spin them into brand-new tales that still hum with the power of something primal and timeless. Think about Bram Stoker’s Dracula, published in 1897 and adapted to the screen in 1931 by Tod Browning, starring the gravely debonair Bela Lugosi; it didn’t just repackage the vampire myth; it drenched it in Victorian dread and Gothic mystique, creating a story that feels at once classic and electrifyingly fresh. Then there’s Nosferatu, the silent film directed by F.W. Murnau, which was released in 1922.

Max Schreck’s performance as Count Orlok in Nosferatu (1922) is captivating and otherworldly. He embodies an eerie, unsettling presence that became iconic for silent horror cinema; his energy on screen is distinctively grotesque and mesmerizing, and his stiff, unnatural movements and uncanny vibe make him feel like a creeping shadow come to life.

Nosferatu was actually an unauthorized adaptation of Stoker’s Dracula, with altered names and some plot changes to avoid copyright infringement, but it was heavily inspired by the novel’s vampire mythos, haunting us with eerie visuals that twist folklore into something uniquely chilling.

To me, folk horror stays alive through adaptation: each return from novel or short story to the screen is a magical mix that lets old worlds meet new nightmares and pulls us in like a flame that draws a moth through the darkness.

Werner Herzog’s Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979) turns the tale into a solemn, plague-haunted folk nightmare, with Klaus Kinski’s Count Dracula emerging from the Carpathian landscape like an ancient contagion rather than a conventional gothic seducer. Isabelle Adjani brings an eerie stillness to Lucy Harker, Bruno Ganz plays the doomed Jonathan, and Roland Topor supplies a feverish Renfield; Herzog’s measured pacing, misty mountain passages, and swarms of rats make the vampire feel inseparable from old-world superstition, disease, and the land itself.

Robert Eggers’s Nosferatu (2024) goes a bit deeper into the folklore: Bill Skarsgård’s Count Orlok is conceived not as a polished aristocrat but as a decaying, and I do mean rotting, corpse-like Transylvanian folk vampire, while Lily-Rose Depp’s haunted Ellen and Nicholas Hoult’s Thomas Hutter stand at the center of the film’s erotic dread and spiritual ruin. Visually, Eggers creates a dense, candlelit world of curses, rural ritual, pestilence, and old beliefs that refuse to yield to modern reason. He has said his approach drew on historical accounts of the “folk vampire,” imagining what a dead Transylvanian nobleman might have looked like within that belief tradition.

Folk horror has a much broader literary family tree than vampire fiction. Its sources include ghost stories, weird fiction, witch-trial accounts, fairy tales, pagan-revival literature, and novels where rural places preserve beliefs the modern world assumes have disappeared. M. R. James, Arthur Machen, Algernon Blackwood, and Alan Garner are especially useful writers.

Long before folk horror became a film label, H. P. Lovecraft was turning rural New England into a landscape of inherited fear. In The Dunwich Horror, an isolated village, a disgraced family, forbidden ritual knowledge, and local stories about whippoorwills —Dunwich residents fear “the numerous whippoorwills” and believe those birds are psychopomps—beings that wait for the souls of dying people- as they gather, making the countryside feel less pastoral than watchful. The horror comes not only from an ancient creature Wilbur summons, but from the suspicion that the land has been keeping an older faith alive beneath the surface of ordinary life.

H. P. Lovecraft is especially interesting in the American literary route into folk horror rather than only a British Gothic one. He is not folk horror in every story, though; Lovecraft is usually classified as cosmic horror because his central fear is humanity’s insignificance before ancient, unknowable forces. But stories such as “The Dunwich Horror” (1928), “The Color Out of Space” (1927), “The Shadow over Innsmouth” (1936), and “The Festival” (1925) often work like folk horror: they place forbidden practices, local legends, inherited corruption, rural or coastal isolation, and ancient entities inside distinctly regional New England settings. Lovecraft’s fictional “country”—Arkham, Dunwich, Innsmouth, and Kingsport—draws on New England geography, Puritan history, witchcraft lore, decaying seaports, and invented local tradition.

The Shadow Over Innsmouth draws on the idea of a closed community. Its decaying Massachusetts port is effectively a sealed local world: outsiders are watched, local history is hidden, and the town’s religious or cultural life is organized around an ancient pact with inhuman sea beings. The narrator arrives as an outsider looking for local color and history, then discovers that the community’s survival depends on a hereditary arrangement that has literally transformed its people. The outsider arrives, the town withholds something, and inherited tradition becomes a living, dangerous social order. Lovecraft’s invented New England settings draw heavily on regional history and folklore, though they are also shaped by his racist and xenophobic worldview—a context worth acknowledging if I were to discuss him at length.

Lovecraft’s Innsmouth is a folk-horror town before folk horror had a name: a decaying coastal community held together by secrecy, inheritance, and an old bargain that outsiders are not meant to see.

M. R. James is probably one of the strongest and cleanest examples—not Lovecraft. His stories regularly use a structure that folk horror loves: Cursed Texts, Buried Relics, and Closed Communities. A rational, often educated outsider enters an old or isolated place. They treat local history as an object to be collected, translated, excavated, or explained. They find a relic: a whistle, crown, manuscript, carving, or burial site. The relic connects them to an older force that does not want to be rationally explained. The surrounding landscape becomes hostile, secretive, or spiritually charged.

Folk horror’s literary history is not only a history of vampires and Gothic castles. In M. R. James’s ghost stories, a rational visitor discovers that an old object or forgotten site still carries a force modern knowledge cannot contain. Television adaptations such as Whistle and I’ll Come to You and A Warning to the Curious turned James’s coastal ruins, buried relics, and uneasy scholars into some of the form’s clearest early screen images.

For example, in James’s Oh, Whistle and I’ll Come to You, My Lad, Professor Parkins finds a whistle near a supposed Knights Templar burial ground on the coast. He ignores the Latin warning engraved on it, blows it, and summons a spectral presence that follows him from the beach to his hotel. Jonathan Miller’s 1968 television adaptation makes the East Anglian coast integral to the fear: wind, sand, empty rooms, and the sense that the landscape has recorded something the visitor cannot read. M. R. James helped establish one of folk horror’s central plots: the modern investigator who mistakes the past for an object of study, only to discover that the past is still alive.

Before folk horror became associated with pagan villages and rural ritual, M. R. James’s “Casting the Runes” established one of its most enduring fears: that beneath the surface of modern, rational life, ancient knowledge can still be used to curse, pursue, and destroy—an idea powerfully brought to the screen in Jacques Tourneur’s Curse of the Demon (1957).

Meanwhile, The Wicker Man, loosely inspired by David Pinner’s Ritual, transformed the novel’s crucial narrative structure- an outsider entering a self-contained community whose traditions are not quaint survivals, but instruments of vitality and fertility. A remote community whose traditions conceal coercion and sacrifice—into the defining dramatic arrangement of 1970s British folk horror: a confrontation between modern rational authority and an older communal order organized around power, regeneration, and continuance.

This genre doesn’t merely project pagan rituals or old superstitions; it’s really about untying the knots made out of the tangled relationships between people, places, and memories- a living archive holding onto stories and revealing how tradition and inherited belief can speak of histories of oppression, inheritance, and those deep, often unsettling, connections that shape who we are.

Folk horror can be seen as a living cultural organism, sometimes forged by the colonial imagination, of resistance, reflecting how cultures hold onto their identities through stories of survival and rebellion, and is haunted by its byproducts.

From Kwaidan 1964

That’s what I want to celebrate this Halloween, not just the jump scares or nostalgia, but that magnetic pull that folk horror exerts on the soul. Its images of fog-drenched moors, whispered incantations, and half-forgotten villages remind us that horror isn’t always about monsters; it’s about memory, about roots. So, with some trailers —tiny cinematic offerings-and some visual cues, I want to invite everyone to peer into that same earthy darkness, to feel the chill where myth and history meet.

After all, as Woodlands Dark so beautifully reminds us, the scariest stories often grow right out of our own backyard. Like a curious archaeologist uncovering bones of old fears, brushing off the dirt to show how our favorite scary stories are like roots in the same soil as our myths and origins.

As Halloween approaches, I keep thinking: what better theme to honor than this eerie conversation between land, legend, and fear? It’s made me want to turn my October into a lantern-lit path through the strange countryside, and a familiar suburb or city made strange and unsettled by dread that can be found in folk horror, where I can share those glimpses through the tease of trailers- as if fairy-light snippets, moments that lure us off the main road and into the thicket, caught in the breath between dusk and dawn.

If you’re ready to dive into the shadowy and mysterious world of folk horror films, here’s a carefully curated list of must-watch titles to get you started—because exploring folk horror is like opening a cinematic treasure chest full of ancient rituals, eerie landscapes, and chilling tales that will leave you both mesmerized and a little bit uneasy. Whether you’re a seasoned fan or just curious, these films offer a perfect window into the mode or subgenre’s haunting magic and rich storytelling tradition.

 

Continue reading “Rituals, Ruins, Reckoning and the Roots of Terror: Unearthing the Magic and Madness of Folk Horror.” →

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

SPOILER ALERT!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962)

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

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

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

Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte (1964)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legacy and Cultural Impact:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, Voyager 1942

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Nanny 1965

SPOILER ALERT!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dead Ringer 1964

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MonsterGirl’s 150 Days of Classic Horror #21 Burnt Offerings 1976

BURNT OFFERINGS 1976

Dan Curtis’s Burnt Offerings (1976) is a sophisticated psychological horror film that subverts traditional haunted house tropes. It stars Karen Black, Oliver Reed, Bette Davis, Lee H. Montgomery, Eileen Heckart, and Burgess Meredith as Roz and Arnold Allardyce, the odd brother and sister who own the mansion.

Burnt Offerings is a morbidly fascinating tale of a family’s summer vacation gone horribly wrong. Karen Black and Oliver Reed star as Marian and Ben Rolf, a couple who rent a massive Victorian mansion for a suspiciously low price. Marian and Ben, along with their son David (Lee H. Montgomery) and Aunt Elizabeth (Bette Davis)—rent the sprawling house for the summer until things take a dark turn. Though the house is too good to be true, there is one catch: The Rolfs must care for Roz and Arnold’s unseen elderly mother, who resides in the attic.

The family soon discovers that their dream home has quirks, like Mrs. Allardyce, the mysterious old lady who never leaves her room, a garden that resurrects itself, and a house with an appetite for human souls.

The real scene-stealer, and the one that made me jump out of my seat in the theater, is the sinister chauffeur, played by Anthony James, who appears in Ben’s nightmares. James, known for his creepy on-screen presence, really gives you a shock to the system in the coffin scene with Bette Davis.

As the house’s sinister influence grows, the Rolfs find themselves in a race against time to escape before they become the latest addition to the property’s unique renovation plan. Burnt Offerings is the perfect example of 70s horror as many of the horror films from that era relied on psychological terror and a pervasive sense of dread rather than graphic violence or supernatural spectacle, though a soul-sucking evil house does have its moments.

Dan Curtis, adept at atmospheric Gothic horror, which includes character-driven supernatural narratives and thoughtful genre adaptations, masterfully builds tension through subtle atmospheric changes and the gradual transformation of the characters, particularly Marian’s growing obsession with the house. The film’s intelligent script, co-written by Curtis and William F. Nolan, delves into the psychological impact of the house on its inhabitants, blurring the lines between reality and supernatural influence.

Burnt Offerings stands out for its nuanced approach to horror, eschewing cheap scares in favor of a pervasive sense of dread. The film’s exploration of how evil can manifest through seemingly benign objects and the corruption of familial bonds is what truly adds a layer of shivers because family dynamics are complex enough when adding a layer of a malevolent force that seeks to destroy them.

Anthony James, with his uniquely imposing face and his topography of scars, delivers a chilling performance as the sinister chauffeur. This recurring apparition that haunts and tortures Ben’s nightmares serves as a harbinger of the house’s malevolent nature. The specter of James’s character becomes a symbol of the inevitable doom that awaits the family as the film explores themes of familial disintegration and the insidious nature of evil, a haunting meditation on the seductive and destructive power of both.

#21 down, 129 to go! Your EverLovin’ Joey formally & affectionately known as MonsterGirl!

 

Enter Teresa Wright in The Little Foxes 1941 – Behold, tomorrow I will bring locusts" and they shall eat every tree of yours that grows in the field.

“I only ever wanted to be an actress, not a star.”

Teresa Wright may seem lamblike at first glance, but don’t let the soft smile fool you into thinking there isn’t something gutsy within that charming glow. She is one of the most engaging actors, and she shows a resolute luster and independence to take on Hollywood with the same veracity she pursued wicked Uncle Charlie in Shadow of a Doubt.

Wright was not only endearing, but her acting and personal life lacked ceremony and authenticity. She was discovered by Samuel Goldwyn and gained early recognition for her exceptional performances in her first three films. She became the only actor to receive Oscar nominations for each of them. Wright earned an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actress and one for Mrs. Miniver.

Teresa Wright and Greer Garson in William Wyler’s Mrs. Miniver (1942).

It stands to reason that Times drama editor Edwin Schallert described Wright’s burgeoning career as “one of the most remarkably brilliant for a young player in Hollywood.” Despite being a Hollywood star, she remained true to herself and rejected the pretentiousness that came along with being a star. She achieved Hollywood stardom on her own terms, without selling out for the sake of glamour.

Teresa Wright was resolute in her refusal to pose for photographs while wearing bathing suits and to subject herself to superficial interviews in gossipy fan magazines. At first, Goldwyn told her he was not of “the bathing suit school of Hollywood producers.”

Muriel Teresa Wright was born in Harlem, New York City. She discovered a passion for acting while attending the exclusive Rosehaven School in Tenafly, New Jersey, after watching Helen Hayes in “Victoria Regina.” While attending high school in Maplewood, N.J., Wright participated in theatrical productions. Although one teacher advised her to pursue typing instead, a public-speaking teacher mentored her and provided her with plays to read. He also arranged for her to spend two summers at the Wharf Theater in Provincetown.

After receiving a scholarship in the two summers preceding her graduation, she began apprenticing at the Wharf Theatre in Massachusetts, appearing in plays such as The Vinegar Tree and Susan and God.
She performed in school plays and graduated from Columbia High School in Maplewood, New Jersey, in 1938. She then decided to pursue acting professionally and moved to New York.

Wright had to drop her first name when she discovered that another actress named Muriel Wright was already registered with Actors Equity.

In 1938, in her first play, she landed an understudy role in Thornton Wilder’s “Our Town” on Broadway and then toured in the play.

It was a minor role, but it also served as a chance to understudy the lead ingénue character of Emily, actress Dorothy Maguire; however, when Maguire failed to return, Teresa continued in the same role under Martha Scott. Wright eventually replaced Martha Scott when the actress adapted the role of Emily in the film version.

Following her successful stage performances, Wright made her remarkable Broadway debut as Mary in Life With Father in 1939. This caught the attention of playwright Lillian Hellman, who recommended her to Goldwyn for the screen version of Hellman’s The Little Foxes.

Teresa Wright as Alexandra (Zan) Gibbons in Lillian Hellman/William Wyler The Little Foxes (1941).

She gained recognition for her work alongside Bette Davis (who played the cold, calculating mother Regina) and Patricia Collinge who reprised her unparalleled Broadway role as the mercurial Aunt Birdie) in the film.

At that time, she had signed a contract with MGM but refused to do publicity stunts or cheese-cake shots that would turn her into a centerfold:

” The aforementioned Teresa Wright shall not be required to pose for photographs in a bathing suit unless she is in the water. Neither may she be photographed running on the beach with her hair flying in the wind. Nor may she pose in any of the following situations: In shorts, playing with a cocker spaniel; digging in a garden; whipping up a meal; attired in firecrackers and holding skyrockets for the Fourth of July; looking insinuatingly at a turkey for Thanksgiving; wearing a bunny cap with long ears for Easter; twinkling on prop snow in a skiing outfit while a fan blows her scarf; assuming an athletic stance while pretending to hit something with a bow and arrow.”

Though she became the unwilling pin-up girl, Teresa Wright became Goldwyn’s biggest overall star during the 1940s.

Teresa Wright and Gary Cooper in Pride of the Yankees (1942) image RKO via Getty Images.

Teresa received Oscar nominations for her roles in Mrs. Miniver (1942), the only movie she made for her studio MGM, and The Pride of the Yankees (1942), winning the Best Supporting Actress trophy for Mrs. Miniver.

In both roles, Teresa Wright gave heartwarming performances as the granddaughter in the sentimental war-era Mrs. Miniver and as baseball icon Lou Gehrig’s kindhearted wife in Pride of the Yankees, starring opposite Gary Cooper. Wright, now one of the most appealing newcomers in Hollywood, garnered two Best Supporting Actress and Best Actress nods in the same year. She holds the record for receiving back-to-back Academy Award nominations in her first three film roles, which still stands today.

Teresa Wright received top billing for Shadow of a Doubt, a film that was her personal favorite and earned every bit of that limelight in Alfred Hitchcock’s psychological thriller. The film places Wright as serial killer Joseph Cotten’s unsuspecting niece, Charlie, at the story’s center. Unsuspecting at first”¦

When Young Charlie (Wright) is over the moon about her favorite Uncle Charlie coming to her sleeping California town for a visit, the whole family celebrates his arrival. Her mother, Emma, Charlie’s older sister (Patricia Collings, who appeared with Wright in The Little Foxes and Casanova Brown), can’t wait to dote on her baby brother. But soon, it comes to light that Charlie might have left strangled wealthy women in his wake, and in fact, maybe The Merry Widow killer.

Teresa Wright gives a nuanced performance as Charlie Newton, who daringly holds her own in a game of cat and mouse with Joseph Cotten. They are tangled up in danger as she carefully draws out his murderous impulses.

But in the shadows beyond the edges, the family is unaware of the two characters diverge ““ one set on self-preservation with a malignant disgust for fat lazy wives who live off their husbands and the other who seeks out the truth and bends toward humanity. Their same names are where it begins and ends. Wright is a glowing jewel in the blackness of Hitchcock’s nightmare.

Continue reading “Enter Teresa Wright in The Little Foxes 1941 – Behold, tomorrow I will bring locusts" and they shall eat every tree of yours that grows in the field.” →

BRIDES OF HORROR – Scream Queens of the 1960s! Part 1

This special The Last Drive in Halloween Feature will conclude with Part 4 and it’s primary focus exclusively on the great Barbara Steele!

‘through the complex changes in society surrounding traditional female roles using the ambivalence of the horror genre’ – Claudia Bunce

The 1960s were plagued by controversy and convulsed with violence. Horror cinema, with the exception of Hammer Studio and European filmmakers’ colorful pageantry of Gothic tales, and the colorful dreamlike poetry of Mario Bava, mainly transitioned from classical themes. In the 1950s, B-horror movie narratives were concerned with outside hostile forces, alien invasions, and fear of nuclear war, but the new decade began to explore more interior horror that originated in the home and within ourselves. And many of these movies stand out as women-centric protagonists…

“Widely interpreted as a pivotal moment in the horror genre. Suggestive that monstrosity must be defined as inherent to the bourgeois family structure rather than an arcane social aberration: the crimes of Norman Bates can be read as the consequence of the sexually active mother, not unlike Marian Crane. The film is profoundly subversive.” – source unknown

After Riccardo Freda abandoned Black Sunday, the project went to cinematographer Mario Bava and became his directorial debut. The film was the start of the director’s momentous contribution to the genre with his masterful grasp of composition, mise en scène, allegorical visual symbolism, imagery, and the bold use of expressionist color, vivid tones, and spectrum of light. Bava directed Kill, Baby Kill! 1966 features a ghostly little blonde girl (actually a boy actor) with a white ball that is the creepy harbinger of a series of violent deaths.

Mario Bava unleashed on us his very dark-hearted black – and- white Black Sunday in 1960 with jolting scenes of death and a new horror goddess, the provocative, wide-eyed Barbara Steele. During the decade of the 60s, Steele’s ascendance within the genre was part of a broader trend in horror cinema that echoed the real world. Her strong presence and instinct to captivate our gaze stood head to head with male horror stars Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing during that period of horror cinema. Barbara Steele inhabited the haunted screen with such a formidable primacy that there’s no disputing she is the ultimate scream queen.

The Italian movie industry of the 1960s saw a wave of gothic chillers. Bava’s Blood and Black Lace 1964, is best remembered as the first “˜Giallo,” a particularly savage trademark of murder mysteries.

Riccardo Freda directed The Horrible Dr. Hichcock 1962 and The Ghost 1963, Margheriti’s beautifully orchestrated, eerily atmospheric ghost story Castle of Blood, and Ciano’s Nightmare Castle 1965. All starring Barbara Steele.

Roger Corman established himself as a successful director. Of course, maverick filmmaker Corman showered us with some of the best campy low-budget sci-fi/horror films of the 1950s, and in the 60s, we were reintroduced to the splendid Poe adaptations in a series of vivid films of glorious terror and dread, with Daniel Haller’s gorgeous hallucinogenic art direction. These films are a series of Gothic masterpieces, – House of Usher 1960, Pit and the Pendulum 1961 and Masque of the Red Death 1964, featuring Hazel Court, another icon of 60s horror, who would command the screen with her fiery sensuality, flexing her bloodlust to offer herself up as Satan’s bride in Red Death.

Corman established himself as a successful director with his landscapes, as Rodrick Usher says, a “feverish and deranged mind’ with his colorful, more substantial yet still low-budget homages to Poe’s series of horror tales, with screenplays by Richard Matheson and cinematography by Floyd Crosby. It reached its artistic peak with the Masque of the Red Death. Many of the women in his Poe series feature a more incendiary female character. The horror genre, especially from the 60s forward, would prove to have more provocative roles for women since the femme fatale reigned during the time of film noir.

Instead of the restrained earlier decades, the 60s held up a mirror to the decade’s social turbulence and reflected back to us, with subversive storytelling, its edgy gore, and taboo-breaking narratives that fed a whole new audience who were hungry for more realistic and challenging scenarios. A new vanguard of filmmakers shattered traditional boundaries that restrained on-screen violence and sexuality.

Women’s roles in classical horror films of the 1930s & 40s (to my memory for now), with the exception of Elsa Lanchester as the Bride, and Gloria Holden as Countess Marya Zaleska in Dracula’s Daughter, initiated most of the leading ladies and supporting actresses, as easily fainting from fright, who screamed with hollow innocence, projecting reductive nuances of helplessness.

Still, there were established directors such as Alfred Hitchcock who caught wind of the changes, inspired by Clouzot’s le Diabolique 1955 and impressed by William Castle’s popular run of low-budget horror formula (albeit with its use of gimmickry).

Psycho 1960 would be set in safe and secure American suburbia instead of the imposing castles of Europe. The clean-cut serial killer would eclipse the caped swarthy vampire as the screen’s new boogeyman. Yet Marion’s ascendancy is as much a major element of the narrative as Norman Bates’ psychopathy!

Hitchcock offered us the bold cautionary tale, The Birds, a film Fellini referred to as “an apocalyptic poem” featuring a beautiful woman perceived as a she-devil that ushered in the natural world’s revolt.

FROM BARBARA CREED THE MONSTROUS FEMININE:

“Melanie Daniels in The Birds is a single woman in her thirties drifting – who must go through a trial by fire which she suffers, is humiliated and lectured to lower her defenses. She is an outsider who is being shown how social behavior becomes physically agonizing.”

The stark black-and-white 1960 film Psycho, based on a real-life serial killer, Ed Gein, pushed the boundaries of the Production Code with its shocking scenes of murder and inflected frames of Janet Leigh’s bra and slip. Leigh’s 30-minute on-screen persona of the immoral Marion Crane was a diverging representation of the traditional leading lady.

The decade also signaled a multitude of black-and-white psychological thrillers. Hammer split off some of its focus on the gory period pieces- translations of Frankenstein, Dracula, and Mummy, and jumped on the Psycho bandwagon with films like Scream of Fear 1961, Maniac 1963, Nightmare 1964, Hysteria 1965, Die! Die! My Darling! 1965 starring Tallulah Bankhead as the menacing Mrs. Trafoil, not a Medieval crone but a modern-day unleashed psychopath. And, The Nanny 1965 with Bette Davis, coming off of her pair of shockers by director Robert Aldrich, plays a sinister governess terrorizing young William Dix.

After Baby Jane, the industry was rife with menacing Hollywood starlets. I’ll be writing about the shattering of the myth of Hag Cinema, down the road. Robert Aldrich set in motion a trend of psychological horror films after he paired Bette Davis and Joan Crawford together in what is considered campy, outrageous at times, sickening – What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? 1962. It was a watershed moment for the genre.

Crawford and Davis, in particular, in Aldrich’s films, made the bold and courageous decision to act under harsh white lights, in grotesque makeup, and were willing to immerse themselves in a character-eclectic, cringingly childish, and utterly sadistic.

After Baby Jane, Aldrich followed up with Davis, de Havilland, and Agnes Moorehead in Hush… Hush, Sweet Charlotte 1964. Crawford worked with William Castle on Strait-Jacket 1964, and Geraldine Page played a greedy murderess in What Ever Happened to Aunt Alice? Co-starring Ruth Gordon. Shelley Winters appeared as the maniacal villainess in the fable-like Who Slew Auntie Roo? 1969 and Winters, Debbie Reynolds, and Moorehead in 1971 topped it off with Harrington’s What’s the Matter with Helen? A personal favorite of mine.

The second wave of the feminist movement and its emergence and impact began with Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique, giving 50s suburban housewives a different vision of domestic enslavement and began to disassemble the myth of that decade’s family values. The quaint and complacent sentiment of post-WW2 comfortability became subverted by empowered women who broke free and found new independence reigniting the Monstrous Feminine giving permission to women as represented more freely in film, with more prominent parts, especially fostered in”¦ the horror genre.

The 60s subverted the expectations surrounding the traditional housewife roles. Witches could be well-bred housewives like Janet Blair in Burn Witch Burn 1962 or a malevolent Ingénue, Sharon Tate in Eye of the Devil 1966.

“The housewife witches of Burn, Witch, Burn and Season of the Witch use witchcraft to escape the confines of the domestic sphere and subvert their husbands’ patriarchal power. Then there is the cult leader witch of Eye of the Devil who uses her femininity to intimidate traditional societal gender roles” – Claudia Bunce

Significant films like Robert Wise’s The Haunting 1963, which were suggestive of lesbianism and repressed sexuality, star two very significant central female characters, Julie Harris and Claire Bloom, who give intensely complex and reflexive performances. Bloom, as the stylish and extraordinarily self-composed Theo, is a truly independent woman who lives life on her own terms. There isn’t anyone who wouldn’t shiver while at the mercy of the malevolent forces of Hill House. Director Georges Franju’s Eyes Without a Face (The French title Les Yeux sans Visage) 1960 has perhaps one of the most graphic scenes of horror, a gruesome fairytale with its medical experimentation with facial transplantation and a lead actress, Edith Scob with her macabre blank mask who floats around the halls like a lost princess swallowed up inside a night terror. The film also stars a stoic Alida Valli, a strong ally to the twisted plastic surgeon in search of a new face for his daughter.

Jack Clayton’s adaptation of Henry James’ The Turn of the Screw, became a screenplay by William Archibald, The Innocents 1961′ lead actress Deborah Kerr lies wide open with her distillation of a woman tortured by her sexual paranoia, dressed in classical clothes, unlike Deneuve’s role in Repulsion, where her character Carol’s neurosis is flayed and hung out naked on display.

And most significantly, the female-centric role of Mia Farrow as the allegorical heroine Rosemary Woodhouse, hunted down by a coven of upper west side devil worshipers in Roman Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby 1968. Farrow’s performance is a striking denunciation of control over women’s bodies, a slow burn of paranoia, and a strong instinct for survival.

“but when he (Guy Woodhouse) took control of her reproductive functions, he asserted his dominance over her in the darkest way possible.

Assertion of dominance reinforced his masculinity and the traditional role that men had in relationships. Guy’s taking control assuages the fear of women gaining too much independence.” – From Jenna Labbie damsels in Distress Analyzing gender in horror movies of the 1960s and 70s

Polanski’s earlier released Repulsion 1965 strayed from Hitchcock’s black humor drizzled about in Psycho. Repulsion rather has a sense of nightmarish realism and a protagonist, Catherine Deneuve who goes down a rabbit hole of repressive seizures.

Repulsion is an extremely disturbing contemplation on the destructive forces of loneliness, isolation, and paranoia seen through the lens of a sexually repressed young woman, Carol, who suffers a homicidal breakdown while her sister and married lover leave her alone for a long weekend. An exit from the cheeky dark humor of Hitchcock’s Psycho, Repulsion brushes the screen with strokes of Carol’s existential misery.

Michael Powell’s groundbreaking shocker Peeping Tom is a hauntingly twisted mood piece about serial killer Karl Bohm, who films his victims in the last moments of their death to capture their fear. It features two very strong female leads, Anna Massey and Maxine Audley.

Mexican fright flicks abound with atmospheric gems like The Curse of the Crying Woman 1963, The Brainiac 1961, and The Witch’s Mirror 1962, featuring strong female-centric characters played by Rosita Arenas and Rita Macedo. And in Jack Hill’s oddball black comedy, Spider Baby 1967 benefited from the quirky presence of both Beverly Washburn and Jill Banner as two bizarre, homicidal sisters.

Luana Anders features significantly in the genre, highlighted in Coppola’s Dementia 13 as the independent yet ruthless Louise Halloran and as prostitute Sylvia in Robert Altman’s psycho-sexual thriller That Cold Day in the Park 1969. The film stars one of my favorite underrated actors, Sandy Dennis, who gives a stunning performance as the disturbed Francis Austen, who holds Michael Burns hostage.

George Romero broke ground with the brutal realism of Night of the Living Dead 1968 which has not so indirect social relevance. 60s horror films were breaking away from Hollywood and being forged by gutsy independent filmmakers with smaller budgets, and an imaginative longing to experiment with diversity, artistic style, and a divergent way to visualize and process gender roles outside traditional cultural norms.

Barbara Shelley

The Queen of Hammer

Ryan Gilbey, in her obituary in The Guardian, praises Shelley’s acting in the Hammer films, considering that she had “a grounded, rational quality that instantly conferred gravitas on whatever lunatic occurrences were unfolding around her.”

The world lost Barbara Shelley in January 2021 at the age of 88. With hair like paprika, Barbara Shelley was born Barbara Kowin. A glamorous gothic leading lady was considered the “˜Queen of Hammer’ during the studio’s golden age of Gothic horror. A classical beauty, with an air of elegance and self-assuredness, she has co-starred with other Hammer royalty Christoper Lee and Peter Cushing. Shelley was an actress with such integrity and beauty that she transcended the horror genre.

The London-based production company was founded in 1934 by William Hinds and James Carrera, who made a string of hit Gothic horror films from the mid-1950s until the 1970s. Inspired by classic horror characters like Baron Victor Frankenstein, Count Dracula, and the Mummy, and appeared in 104 films and television series until 2000. She was a member of the Royal Shakespeare Company between 1975 and 1977.

From Wiki-
{Hammer reintroduced to audiences by filming them in vivid colour for the first time. Hammer also produced science fiction, thrillers, film noir and comedies, as well as, in later years, television series. During its most successful years, Hammer dominated the horror film market, enjoying worldwide distribution and considerable financial success.}

“Hammer was like a family, a very talented family”¦ with a wonderful atmosphere on the set and a wonderful sense of humour.

“When I first started doing Hammer, all the so-called classic actors looked down on the horror film. All the other things I did, nobody remembers those. But for the horror films, I’m very grateful to them because they built me a fan base, and I’m very touched that people will come and ask for my autograph. If you went to see a [Hammer] film in the cinema, the gasps were interspersed with giggles because people were giggling at themselves for being frightened, they were frightening themselves, and this is what made Hammer very special.”

With her success as a teenage model, she made her minor film debut in Hammer’s motion picture Mantrap in 1952, directed by Terence Fisher and starring Paul Henreid and Lois Maxwell.

Shelley took her screen name from Italian actor Walter Chiari who saw something in the actress and suggested that she use the last name as a tribute to his favorite English romantic poet Percy Bysshe Shelley. She wound up living in Rome for four years and appeared in nine Italian-speaking films.

She returned to the UK in 1957, starring that year for British Lion Film in her first starring role within the horror genre as Leonora Johnson Née Brandt in Cat Girl (1957), directed by Alfred Shaughnessy, who set out to borrow from Jacques Tourneur’s superior, and innovative Cat People (1942). Leonora Johnson returns to her ancestral home that is beset with the family curse, that the spirit of a leopard will possess her. The film was a collaboration between American International Pictures and the British Anglo-Amalgamated.

Her first starring vehicle was Cat Girl (1957), Alfred Shaughnessy’s offbeat variation of Jacques Tourneur’s influential Cat People (1942), and A.I.P.’s first co-production with the UK’s Anglo-Amalgamated. The following year, she made her first major appearance in a film for Hammer, The Camp on Blood Island.

In 1958, she co-starred as a woman in peril at the hands of mad scientist Callistratus (Donald Wolfit). In Blood of the Vampire, Shelley is the picture of fainting beauty chained to the wall, a garish period piece in line with the days of Universal’s classic horrors, though scattered with gory scenes, satiated by fake blood and understated cleavage.

In 1880 Transylvania Dr. Calistratus is brought back to life by his one-eyed hunchback assistant Carl after he’d been executed as a vampire. At the same time, Dr. John Pierre (Vincent Ball) is on trial for killing one of his patients whom he tried to save with a blood transfusion. He is found guilty and sentenced to life. Barbara Shelley plays the fiancée, Madeleine, set on finding the truth behind the incriminating letter allegedly proving his guilt, forged by Calistratus.

He is brought to prison for the criminally insane by the mad doctor’s hunchback Carl. John is put in a cell, a menacing place guarded by vicious dogs, where Calastratus experiments and tortures his human subjects. In order to prove John’s innocence, Madeleine poses as Calastratus’ housekeeper, who winds up chained to a wall and strapped to an operating table!

Shelley was against her body being exploited or appearing in any nude scenes while being menaced by Wolfit. She warded off this endeavor by producers Robert S. Baker and Monty Berman by writing the word “STOP” on her chest. She threatened to sue the studio if it even used a body double.

“I had one or two dissertations on horror sent to me by students, and all the discussion ever seems to be concerned with is exploitation and the licking of blood and a scene of people making love, and it’s not right. It annoys me intensely because my career was not built on exploitation and sex. It was built on working very hard.”

In 1960, she is marvelous in the heartbreaking role of the tragic mother Anthea Zellerby who has given birth to an unfeeling monstrous alien boy who has uncanny dangerous powers along with the rest of the children of Midwich. All the mothers in Midwich have conceived during a strange blackout where they wind up giving birth to a breed of malevolent telepathic sociopaths.

Shelley’s character is earnest in the role of a woman torn between motherhood and sheer terror in director Wolf Rilla’s incredibly unsettling moody classic blend of science fiction and horror- Village of the Damned (1960) based on John Wyndham’s science fiction novel The Midwich Cuckoos. The film co-stars George Sanders as Shelley’s altruistic husband Gordon, who seeks to understand the menacing children with their freaky white hair and piercing eyes, and his creepy son David, played by Martin Stephans. These dangerous little progeny can get inside people’s minds and make them do anything they want, as in making Shelley’s character stick her hand in a pot of boiling water. The screenplay written by Stirling Sillipant is quite a disturbing potboiler in total.

She went on to star in John Gilling’s turn-of-the-century old dark house mystery Shadow of the Cat (1961)

Some of the outstanding pictures that put her upon the throne as the reigning Queen of those splendid years of Gothic horror are Dracula: Prince of Darkness 1966, Rasputin the Mad Monk 1966 with Christopher Lee, and The Gorgon 1964 with Peter Cushing. The monstrous Gorgon is portrayed by Prudence Hyman.

“She really was Hammer’s number one leading lady and the Technicolor queen of Hammer.
“On-screen, she could be quietly evil. She goes from statuesque beauty to just animalistic wildness.” She adored Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing and loved working with them; that was very dear to her.”-Agent, Thomas Bowington

What truly established Barbara Shelley’s esteemed reputation as the First Lady of British Horror in the mid-1960s is her collaboration with Terence Fisher. Leaving behind the more exploitative persona of the luscious heroine with inviting bosoms, Shelley portrayed the sympathetic character of Carla Hoffman in Fisher’s mood piece The Gorgon. Carla is the assistant to Dr. Namaroff (Peter Cushing) and a tortured soul possessed by an ancient evil spirit with serpents for hair and the ability to turn whoever gazes upon her to stone, and Shelley conveys the bleakness of a woman who is held captive by her monstrous alter ego.

Before Shelley turns into the blood-sucking bride of Dracula, she plays her first woman transformed into a monster in The Gorgon (1964). She told the studio “I wouldn’t need any makeup”¦ just a green face and the headdress of real snakes.” Shelley was absolutely let down when she saw what the special effects department conjured up, “They came up with these terrible sorts of rubber snakes dancing around, and it just looked awful. It wasn’t frightening at all.” She had said that it was “probably the biggest regret I’ve had in any film I ever made.”

She was absolutely dejected when they chose to substitute Prudence Hyman in the part of the Gorgon. “They came up with these terrible sorts of rubber snakes dancing around, and it just looked awful. It wasn’t frightening at all.” She called it “probably the biggest regret I’ve had in any film I ever made,” though she admired the look of the picture, noting that “every shot ” resembles a Rembrandt painting.”

In Dracula: Prince of Darkness 1966, Christopher Lee resurrects the count from Horrors of Dracula 1958. Shelley plays Helen, the heroine whom we empathize with as she is trapped by her circumstances, when her stubborn husband Alan (who dismisses Helen’s panic), and his brother Charles, both refuse to leave the creepy, unwelcoming Castle Dracula after stumbling onto the unattended mausoleum.

They want to stay and partake in a meal laid out for them, but Helen is justifiably spooked by its strange undercurrent. “Everything about this place is evil.”

Once Christopher Lee’s resurrection, Helen goes through a diverging transformation from the archetypal repressed female to an unrestrained raptorial vampiress liberated from her proper English breeding, in high contrast to her tightly swung hair in a provincial hat, which is now wide open with unwound flowing hair and unequivocal breastage. Shelley loved how distinct her character’s trajectory was in Dracula: Prince of Darkness, from inhibited, startled gentlewoman to the monstrous feminine as one of Dracula’s brides. When she appears at Karlsbad Castle, telling Suzan Farmer, “Nothing’s wrong” through hungry red lips and baring fangs. “Come, sister, you don’t need Charles,” she tempts, with inviting arms outstretched to the innocent Suzan Farmer as Diana. Shelley’s virtuous woman, who reveals to her, Diana, that she is now a vampire, is lauded by Gilbey in The Guardian as having “traumatized and tantalized” viewers.

Shelley’s scream in Dracula is actually dubbed by fellow actress Suzan Farmer (Die Monster Die! 1965 with Boris Karloff), who appeared with her in Dracula: Prince of Darkness and Rasputin The Mad Monk.

A terrifying scene, perhaps inspiring by Stephen King’s Salem’s Lot, has Helen tapping on the window in the middle of the night. “Please let me in,” she pleads. “It’s cold out here. So cold. Everything’s all right now.”

She was delighted by one of her most potent scenes -when she contends with her adversaries, monks who lie her on a table and hammer a stake through her undead heart.

Shelley told Mark Gatiss in his 2010 documentary series A History of Horror, “The scene that I’m most proud of is when she is staked, that’s absolute evil, when she’s struggling, and then suddenly she’s staked and there is tremendous serenity. And I think that is one of my best moments in the film.”

“… and then suddenly she’s staked, and there is tremendous serenity. And I think that is one of my best moments on film.”

“Christopher Lee, who was an eloquent Gothic figure of pure evil in 1958’s first adaptation of Stoker’s vampire, had now evolved into a hissing fiend. But Shelley had this to say about the actor -“He brought dignity and veritas. It’s a difficult thing to bring to a fantasy like a vampire. And that is just Chris’ appearance and his personality. He did all that. He used to walk onto the sent and I’d say to him it’s an extraordinary performance, cause we know each other so well and you could hypnotize me. But it was brilliant because he completely dominated the film without a word. Talk about silent movies!”

Shot at the same time was another Hammer horror, Rasputin the Mad Monk, with Christopher Lee, who has dialogue in a more colorful, lurid role, as the mad mesmerist in contrast to his silent, blood-eyed fiend. Shelley falls under the spell of Rasputin. While not willing to do a nude scene in Blood of the Vampire, she was, however, up to laying bare a seduction scene with Christoper Lee. “That scene was in the script when I read it. The scenes I refused to do was when they would suddenly say to me, ‘Oh, you take your clothes off here’ The answer to that was always no” – From an interview with Fangoria Magazine 2010.

One of her beloved roles is her last Hammer feature in Roy Ward Baker’s adaptation of writer Nigel Kneale’s (The Quatermass Experiment 1955, First Men in the Moon 1964, The Witches 1966, The Stone Tape 1972 TV movie) Quatermass and the Pit 1967.

In Quatermass and the Pit, Shelley portrays scientist Barbara Judd who along with paleontologist Doctor Roney (James Donald) and a team of scientists discover an ancient alien race whose spacecraft is found buried in the underground station at Hobbs End during an expansion of London’s Underground transport system. Shelley develops a psychic link to the aliens and is taken over by the inhabitants of the alien spacecraft.

She is subjected to images of green gooey decomposing locust-like alien carcasses that, in the process of being removed from the tunnels, cause her brain to succumb to the electromagnetic influence of the spacecraft, causing her to writhe in pain. She is so totally reasonable as an actress that she brings credibility to her character. Shelly had claimed that director Roy Ward Baker was her favorite of all the filmmakers she worked with.

The way he felt about her goes like this. He told Bizarre Magazine in a 1974 interview that he was “mad about her. “Mad in the sense of love,” he said. “We used to waltz about the set together, a great love affair. It puzzles me about her. She should be much bigger than she is, but I don’t think she really cares whether she is a star or not. She can act, God, she can act!”

In The Avengers 1961 image: Studio Canal.

Barbara Shelley would eventually do guest appearances on popular television shows, including the British television series Doctor Who, playing Sorasta in the episode “Planet Of Fire,” starring Peter Davison as the fifth incarnation of Doctor Who. She would also appear on The Saint, The Avengers, The Man From U.N.C.L.E, and Route 66. Later, she would play Hester Samuels in “EastEnders.”

Shelley’s final role in horror films was in the old dark house mystery Ghost Story 1974 directed by Stephen Weeks and co-starring Marianne Faithful.

Her final role on screen was in the Uncle Silas mini-series in 1989. A sinister character brought to life on screen by Derrick De Marney in 1947 with Jean Simmons in the role of Caroline.

Although Shelley ultimately felt framed within the horror genre by the late 1960s, retiring two decades later, she always embraced her devoted fanbase and left behind a substantial legacy. “I realized that my work had been appreciated and that I had – through those horror films – actually reached a far bigger audience than I would ever have done if I’d stuck to the theater.”

The actress was modest about her achievements but happy with her legacy, as she conveyed with typical aplomb to Marcus Hearn: “There’s a lovely saying, ‘we’re given memories so we can have roses in winter. When I look back over my various rose gardens, I’m only sorry I didn’t enjoy them more”.

“No one told me I was beautiful. They said I was photogenic, but no one said I was beautiful. If they had, I would have had a lot more fun!”

In an interview with the Express newspaper in 2009, she said she was told at a convention by female fans that they loved her for her strong roles. “Which I thought was a brilliant thing to have said about one. I never thought of it in that way. The fact that I’m still getting mail from my horror fan base really touches me.”

TRIVIA

While making the 1961 TV film, A Story of David, she met Hollywood star Jeff Chandler and they began a relationship. Chandler died suddenly the following year. Shelley is later reported to have said that he had been the love of her life

So convincing was Shelley’s violently realistic struggle against the stake, she swallowed one of her stuck-on fangs.

With no spares at the ready and a tight shooting schedule, it is reported that she kept drinking salt water until she puked it up.

After the scene in Dracula: Prince of Darkness where she struggles with the monks at the end with her demise, it was so physically demanding on Shelley, that she suffered from chronic back pain.

Barbara Shelley would recall how she and Lee, prided themselves on being “un-corpseable”, and would compete to make one another laugh during takes.

Cat Girl 1957, Blood of the Vampire 1958, VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED 1960 THE GORGON 1964,  DRACULA PRINCE OF DARKNESS 1966, RASPUTIN THE MAD MONK 1966, QUATERMASS AND THE PIT 1967

Continue reading “BRIDES OF HORROR – Scream Queens of the 1960s! Part 1” →

Chapter 3 – Queers and Dykes in the Dark: Classic, Noir & Horror Cinema’s Coded Gay Characters:

The subtle gay gangster films of the early 1930s – Little Caesar 1931, The Public Enemy 1931 and Scarface 1932

"Criminals should not be made heroes"¦ The flaunting of weapons by gangsters will not be allowed"¦"

“… the fashion for romanticizing gangsters” must be denounced.

The three films also evenhandedly parcel out social pathology and sexual aberration: homosexuality in Little Caesar. Directed by Mervyn LeRoy from the novel by W.R. Burnett Little Caesar was first out of the gate and an immediate sensation. A diminutive bandit whose single-minded ambition compensates less for his stature than his repressed homosexual desire, Caesar Enrico Bandello is compact, swarthy and tightly wound; his golden boy pal Joe played by the scion of Hollywood royalty Douglas Fairbanks Jr. is tall, patrician and easygoing.

When Joe finds a female dancer and show business success, the jilted Caesar unhinged by a jealousy that dare not speak its name even to himself, makes his first mistakes in judgement. The male triangle is completed by Caesar's worshipful lapdog Otera (George E. Stone) who gazes up at Rico with a rapturous desire that, unlike Rico, he barely bothers to sublimate. Doubly deviant Rico dies for his social and sexual sins, asking in tight close-up and choked up tones, "mother of Mercy, is this the end of Rico?"The famous last words inspired an incisive remark from Robert Warshow on gangster psychology:" Even to himself he is a creature of the imagination" from FILMIC – From Sissies to Secrecy: The Evolution of the Hays Code Queer by Mikayla Mislak

"This is what I get for likin' a guy too much," Rico ‘Caesar’ tells himself after he realizes he’s lost, Joe. Joe, who he has referred to as "soft" and a "sissy." The very pretty Joe (Douglas Fairbanks Jr.) has decided to give up the racket, to be a professional nightclub dancer. Robinson wisecracks, “Dancin’ just ain’t my idea of a man’s game.”

Joe is romantically involved with Olga (Glenda Farrell). ‘Caesar’ is not only jealous of Joe’s relationship with Olga, but he also appears to have no use for women at all.

In the end, there is a telling close-up, a well of tears in his eyes, a subtle quiver in his face. Rico cannot shoot Joe, even though he needs to keep him from squealing. The image of Robinson coming head-on with his feelings reveals his struggle with the repressed love for his dancing pal. The scene is very effective when the camera closes in on Robinson, capturing his dewy, wide-eyed stare. Behind the scenes what helped the intensity of the look of longing turned out to be a serendipitous moment when Robinson had to fire a pistol while looking into the camera, and was unable to keep his eyes open, each time he pulled the trigger. Eventually, they had Robinson’s eyes held open with cellophane tape. The effect worked perfectly.

Another interesting point in Little Caesar that hints at his latent homosexuality is a scene that highlights his clumsy fussiness. Rico is trying on a tuxedo and gazing at himself in the mirror. Posturing gleefully as he swishes at his own reflection. In this scene, Rico also becomes caught in his effete sidekick Otero’s (George E. Stone) gaze, who joyfully watches his boss flit for the mirror.

In The Public Enemy (1931) there is a noteworthy scene when Tom (James Cagney) goes to his tailor to get fitted for a suit. It’s a hilariously fidgety few moments for Cagney while the flamboyant tailor fawns over his arm muscles. When the movie was re-released, the sequence wound up on the cutting room floor.

According to Mislak In Howard Hawk’s Scarface (1932), it could be seen as having a gay subtext, as Antonio ‘Tony’ Camonte (Paul Muni) shows a repressed homosexual desire for his best friend Guino Rinaldo played by George Raft. Hawk’s film doesn’t work on a blatant exhibition of violence, instead, Scarface’s subtlety draws on the subliminal impression of his sexual impulses.

Through my readings, it has been noted that there is a coded gayness inferred from the character of Camonte in Scarface. Rather than the repressed sexual desire for his close friend Guino, I catch more a wind of an incestuous desire for his sister Cesca (Ann Dvorak). Camonte hovers over her with an iron will, not allowing her to have any man touch her. She even alludes to his untoward attentions at one point telling him that he loves her more than just a brother. Camonte (Muni) does focus obsessively over his hair and his wardrobe, which Poppi (Kathy Morely) tells him is ‘sweet’. But there are a few references to Guino being queer. He wears a carnation which is a code for being a gay man in film. Camonte says he’d like a carnation too, takes it out of Guino’s lapel, and tells him “Better no one sees you with this.” He also makes a comment about one of the North Side gang members not being taken seriously because he owns a flower shop! Guino doesn’t show any interest in women until nearly close to the end of the picture, when he submits to Camonte’s sister, Cesca.

“The placement of homosexuality or the real possibility of it in an antisocial context is quite natural. Homosexuality when it is invisible is antisocial. The only condition under which homosexuality has ever been socially acceptable has been on the occasion of its voluntary invisibility, when homosexuality were willing to pass for heterosexuals. Obvious homosexual behavior is reflected onscreen as in real life, only in the ‘twilight world’ of misfit conduct. During the brief period of explicit reference to homosexuals in pre-Code films of the early 1930s. Gay characters were psychologically ghettoized by their routine relegations to a fantasy world or an underworld life….

….in addition to strengthening the Code in 1934, Will Hays reacted to criticism by inserting morals clauses in the contracts of performers and compiling a “doom book’ of 117 names of those deemed “unsafe” because of their personal lives. Homosexuality was denied as assiduously off screen as it was on, a literally unspeakable part of the culture. By 1940 even harmless sex-roles farces such as Hal Roach’s Turnabout were considered perilous in some quarters. The film, about a married couple (Carol Landis and John Hubbard) who switch roles by wishing on an Oriental statue, was described by the Catholic Legion of Decency as dealing with ‘subject matter which may provide references dangerous to morality, wholesome concepts of human relationships and the dignity of man.’ ” –Vito Russo

HITCHCOCK SUBVERTS SUSPENSE!

Hitchcock sensed the ambiguous sexuality in Mrs. Danvers (nicknamed Danny) who embodies the forbidding identity of the coded lesbian in 1940s films. As she strides down the halls of Manderley, there is an element of the angry older woman trope, who is vacant of male companionship by choice, with an added streak of dissatisfied longing. She embodies the sterile matron, showing characteristics of an ‘old maid’ attributed to a repressed lesbian.” Rebecca serves as Fontaine’s idealized mother and that Hitchcock’s films present images of ambiguous sexuality that threaten to destabilize the gender identity of the protagonist.” -(Tania Modleski)

Gay Coding in Hitchcock films

Article by Scott Badman & Connie Russell Hosier

“In typical Hitchcock-ian fashion, the “Master of Suspense” often employed in his films subtle references to gay culture, defying conservative attitudes of the late ’50s.”-Scott Badman & Connie Russell Hosier | February 7, 2017- Editor's note: The following article, like many of Alfred Hitchcock's films, includes references to sex and violence.

Did Martin Landau play a homosexual in North by Northwest? Did Alfred Hitchcock really show gay sex on-screen in Rope, albeit in an unusual way? Was the whole plot of Rebecca driven by the twisted jealousy of an evil lesbian? And, most surprisingly, did Hitchcock depict a gay marriage way back in 1938's The Lady Vanishes?”

Alfred Hitchcock was a complicated man, who put a singular stamp on all his films, infusing them with his droll and macabre sense of humor and imbuing his work from the point of view of a satyr. Hitchcock projects his dark and twisted view of the world as at the end of his films there is sort of a perverted release that he leaves us to contemplate. It also appears that he was playful with the use of his gay-coded characters in many of his films.

Nothing Hitchcock did was unintentional, thereby reinforcing proof that there is a gay subtext to many characters in various films. He was very measured in every detail even before the camera captured the scene. But this method of implying a queer pathology and positing queer elements to the narrative. He was ingenious in the way he veiled his ciphers within the cloak of deniability, in order to slip it by the censors in his cheeky manner.

Though Hitchcock would often imbue his pictures with coded gay characters, among scholars it is still speculative as to which side his view fell on. Given that everything Hitchcock constructed was intentional, it’s easy to see why he would be viewed as homophobic, due to his use of stereotypes that eventually led to queerness possibly being as the source of the crimes. But you have to consider that during the time he reigned, it’s a tribute to Hitchcock that he even embraced the complex issue of homosexuality. It shows me that there was a conscious level of understanding.

In his life, Hitchcock surrounded himself with gay culture be it in England or Hollywood, and he worked with many gay writers and actors. Ivor Novello who starred in two of Hitchcock’s silent pictures was good friends with him and Alma. Hitchcock was also friends with Rope stars John Dall and bisexual Farley Granger who played coded gay characters in the film. Granger also had the lead in Strangers on a Train, co-starring Rober Walker who plays another of Hitchcock’s coded gay characters, Bruno. Anthony Perkins who struggled with his sexuality in real life, plays the ambiguous, stammering, Norman Bates in Psycho. According to Jay Poole, Robert Bloch was interested in ‘abnormal psychology’ and was familiar with Freudian theories on sexual identity. His novel was more suggestive of the taboos, in terms of the incestuous relationship with Norman’s mother and his confused sexual identity.

The assessment of ‘camp’ and queerness can be seen as negative. More contemporary audiences might perceive Psycho as more campy than lurid or scary. Norman’s appearance in the fruit cellar might register with audiences as if he’s a big ugly ridiculous drag queen with a knife. The rest of the film is darkly humorous. (Doty cites Danny Peary)

In contrasting these male characters, one representative of sexually suspect psychosis, the other of gendered and sexual normalcy, Hitchcock blurs the lines between them, creating effects that will inform future depictions of American masculinity… While Lila Crane has been read positively as a lesbian character, and also as Carol Clover’s prototype for the ‘final girl” I demonstrate here that Lila is a more ambiguous figure, tied to social repression and the law. […] (Norman’s voyeurism and Lila’s examination of Norman’s room as pornographic) Infusing these pornographic motifs with addition levels of intensity and dread was the increasingly public threat of homosexuality within the Cold War context in which Hitchcock’s related themes gained a new, ominous visibility. What emerges in Psycho is a tripartite monster-voyeurism-homosexuality-pornography.” — (Scott Badman & Connie Russell Hosier)

WARNING SPOILERS:

Saboteur (1942) producer/writer Joan Harrison wrote the screenplay and collaborated with Hitchcock on many projects for both film and television. In the period of the 1940s to the 1950s, movies often conflated homosexuality with unsavory characters like Nazis, communists, and terrorists.

Saboteur stars Robert Cummings as plane mechanic Barry Kane who is framed for the terrorist bombing of a military installation’s aircraft hanger where they manufacture planes. After he sees his friend die in the explosion, police assume that it was Kane who filled the fire extinguisher with gasoline. Kane goes on the run, to try and find the man he suspects is the saboteur, Frank Fry (Norman Lloyd) who is the real murderer who committed the heinous crime.

Kane stumbles onto a secret group of ‘the firm’, 5th columnists who are plotting to sabotage key targets, military planes, ships, and dams. Kane is dropped into the middle of a cabal of dangerous Americans who have infiltrated positions of power in order to carry out their nefarious plan to disrupt the democratic system and cause chaos. Socialite dowager Mrs. Henrietta Sutton (Alma Kruger) is a New York philanthropist who provides cover for the ‘firm’ run by Otto Kruger as the coldly, sinister Tobin. Kane pretends to go along with the group, and in one scene in a taxi with Alan Baxter who plays Mr. Freeman, there is a queer exchange between the two. Freeman tells Kane about his two little children, one of them is a boy, whom he wishes was a girl. He’s letting his son’s hair grow long and hesitates to cut it. Then he shares his reminiscence about his boyhood when he had glorious long blonde curls. Kane tells him to cut his son’s hair and “save yourself some grief.”

Purely by Hitchcockian fate, Kane is thrown together with Pat (Priscilla Lane) who comes to his aid and at one point tries to distract Fry at the top of the Statue of Liberty. The beautiful Pat flirts with Fry in order to stall him until the police get there, but he isn't the slightest bit interested in her at all. In fact, he seems annoyed by her presence. He's a slim effete figure, a swishy loner with a serpent-like grin. Theodore Price, in his book ‘Hitchcock and Homosexuality (1992), has no doubt Fry was gay. (Ken Mogg 2008)

Saboteur climax prefigures that of North by Northwest between Thornhill (Cary Grant) and the sinister Leonard (Martin Landau) who is also a gay Hitchcockian figure.

We first hear a remark spoken by socialite Mrs. Sutton (Alma Kruger) when Barry (Kane) is taken to the saboteurs’ New York lair, as Barry enters the upstairs room. Mrs. Sutton is addressing a couple of her male colleagues, whom she reprimands: ‘I have to hover over you like an old hen.’

This is precisely the line Hitchcock uses in Rebecca to characterize the somewhat de-natured estate manager Frank Crawley (Reginald Denny) – nearly all the men in the film are so afflicted – and will be used again in The Paradine Case to characterize the gay Latour (Louis Jourdan).

Frank Crawley is ‘as fussy as an old mother hen’; Latour, we’re told, had been ‘like an old mother hen’ to his beloved master, the blind Colonel Paradine.- Ken Mogg (2008)

In North by Northwest (1959) Martin Landau’s character Leonard, displays an undercurrent of homosexuality, that is subtly implied. He’s a devoted bodyguard whose gaze on his boss, Phillip Vandamm, seems to be bubbling with a refined sensibility, romantically fixated on Vandamm (James Mason), a communist spy being hunted by the CIA. For a 1950s film, Leonard’s immaculate fashion sense and his fastidious swagger are a cue of his being queer. Nearing the climax of North by Northwest, the telling scene set in a mid-century modern house reveals Leonard’s love for Vandamm. Hitchcock even sets up the motive for Leonard shooting the object of his affection, jealousy, and rejection. In a notable line toward the end of the movie, Leonard remarks, “Call it my woman’s intuition” affirming the effete stereotype of a feminine gay man. Vandamm is genuinely flattered (contrary to homosexual panic) by Leonard’s feelings, which hints at his motivation for killing the thing he loves. Vandamm (Mason) tells him in that coldly sober tone of his, “I think you’re jealous. I mean it, and I’m very touched. Very.” As Scott Badman & Connie Russell Hosier point out, Hitchcock’s direction shows a “progressive perspective for its time but so brief that it doesn’t fully register with most viewers. Much later, Landau acknowledged that he played Leonard as a homosexual, albeit subtly.”

From the opening of Strangers on a Train (1951), Hitchcock frames the entranceway to the story with a close shot of the main character’s shoes walking to catch the train. Bruno wears elaborate wing tips with high heels and Guy wears a more toned-down fashionable pair of shoes, which are in opposition to each other and illustrate the contrast between the two main characters.

Robert Walker’s Bruno is a menacing, creepy guy with flashy ties, who positions himself after a chance meeting on a commuter train, to assert his influence over famous tennis player, Guy Haines (Farley Granger). Bruno begins to flatter Guy and insinuate himself by sharing his knowledge of Guy’s personal life. He is very proud of the tie that his mother gave him. It is a garish accouterment dappled with lobsters. Like his silken smoking robe and another tie with the name, Bruno embroidered on it. Bruno also spouts a lot of ‘ideas’ he has in that ever prompted mind of his, when talking about Guy’s upcoming divorce and bigamy scandal, “I've got a wonderful theory about that."

Bruno insists on Guy having lunch with him, “sent to my compartment… You see you'll have to lunch with me.” It is obvious, though Hitchcock is very subtle about broadcasting the cues, that Bruno is wooing Guy. Bruno is very effeminate in his demeanor, you could say that he has a ‘flaming’ air about him, always dropping hints about his sexuality. “My father hates me”, insinuating that he is not the kind of man he expects of him. “I've got a theory that you should do everything before you die." He tells Guy amorously, “I like you, I’d do anything for you.”

Bruno Anthony’s plan is for both men to exchange for each other’s murders. There are several scenes that scream Hitchcock’s gay coding. Initially, when the two men meet each other on the train, Bruno is flirtatious, dressed in ‘flamboyant clothes’, which to gay audiences, is seemingly clear to be a gay pickup. Bruno’s not only attracted to the handsome Guy, but he is in fact stalking him as an ‘object’ to fulfill his needs and be his ‘partner’ in his deranged homoerotic plot.

His mother, Mrs. Anthony (the wonderful character actor Marion Lorne) does Bruno’s nails and dotes on her son. As Bruno tells his mother, he wants his nails to look right.

Homosexuality is not explicitly stated, but there is too strong an import for critics and audiences in the know, to ignore. And, considering Hitchcock’s fascination with homosexual subtexts, it’s not a stretch to read into various scenes this way.

There is also the insinuation that Bruno has some serious mother issues, which is one of Hitchcock’s points of reference for his gay coding, such as his use of it with Norman Bates in his film Psycho. Bruno amuses himself by antagonizing his mother (Marion Lorne) who is completely in the dark about the twisted pathology of her homicidal son.

Bruno has set up a visit from Guy who finds himself talking to the sociopath, who’s been waiting for Guy while lying in bed in his silky pajamas. Is this actually arranged as a bedroom seduction?

Another brief sequence takes place at the end which centers around a carousel, a possible symbol of fluid sexuality, and sexual foreplay. The scene shows Bruno and Guy wrestling with each other, the movements could be read as Bruno really achieving what he wanted, to have sex with Guy. Hitchcock even cut different versions of the movie for Britain and the U.S., toning down the implied homosexuality in the American version "” proof positive that he was fully aware of the gay implications in his movies. –(Badman and Hosier)

Hitchcock’s Rope (1948) is based on the play by Patrick Hamilton Rope's End is perhaps one of the more obvious coded gay films with homosexual subtexts in his canon. Arthur Laurents, who eventually came out of the closet and wrote the screenplay, said during a commentary “What was curious to me was that Rope was obviously about homosexuals. The word was never mentioned. Not by Hitch, not by anyone at Warners. It was referred to as ‘it’. They were going to do a picture about ‘it’, and the actors were ‘it’.” The original British stage play was loosely based on the sensational true crime committed by Chicago students Leopold and Loeb in 1924, who killed a fellow student, just to see if they could get away with a motiveless crime. The script was penned by Arthur Laurents in collaboration with Hume Cronyn and Ben Hecht.

Brandon (John Dall) and Philip (Farley Granger) are entitled, affluent snobs, who are self-aggrandizing psychopaths with a Nietzschean superiority. Hitchcock arranges a taut stage play, around a case of Folie à deux. Brandon and Philip are implied coded lovers, who used the crime of murder to stimulate each other as if it were a sex act. The intellectual discourse they have at the beginning of the picture is overshadowed by the sexual banter that precedes what ultimately will become the act of committing a murder. Rope from the beginning of the picture inaugurates a very feverish sexual undercurrent.

In real life, John Dall was gay but died in 1971 without talking openly about his homosexuality. Farley Granger was bisexual when making the movie and then was in a lifelong gay relationship starting in 1963. Alfred Hitchcock was well aware of the sexual orientations of both actors and was reportedly pleased with what is now called the on-screen "chemistry" between the two.

He coded Brandon and Philip as gay by their "sex scene." It occurs at the very beginning of the movie, which is also the murder scene. Hitchcock is strongly equating murder with sex. The murder-sex occurs behind curtained windows. The death scream corresponds to the orgasm. Now visible, the murderers Brandon and Philip quickly put the body in a cabinet and go into a postcoital exhaustion. Philip doesn't even want the light turned on. In an inspired touch, Hitchcock has Brandon light a cigarette, a standard Hollywood indicator for "we just had sex." – (Badman and Hosier)

The unorthodox murderers throw a dinner party with the victim stuffed inside an antique trunk. The film was initially banned in Chicago and other cities, because of its implied homosexual relationship between the two killers. In 1959, the story was revised as Compulsion directed by Richard Fleischer scripted by Richard Murphy, and based on the novel by Meyer Levin. Compulsion remains closer to the actual true-life crime, and the implicit queer undertones are brought more to the surface, with less of Hitchcock’s cheeky innuendo.

Hitchcock employs many homoerotic symbology and allusions, as the couple reenact the murder, with the director conflating violence and sex. For instance, Brandon gets a bottle of champagne still invigorated by the murder, while Philip the weaker of the murderous pair, is nervous. Brandon fondles the bottle of champagne as the two stands close together very intimately. He grasps the champagne bottle as phallus and flirts with the top of the bottle, yet not releasing the cork. All this is stages as foreplay. Philip finally takes the bottle from Brandon and liberates the cork. They then toast to their victim. Film Critic Robin Wood asserts, in The Murderous Gays: Hitchcock’s Homophobia, that these films could be made as more positive or sensitive to homosexuality rather than “traffic in homophobia” and that it perpetuate the notion that homosexuality leads to violence.

Psycho (1960)

Psycho works as a warped adult fairytale about getting lost and paying for one’s transgressions. Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) is a Phoenix secretary who embezzles forty thousand dollars from her employer’s client and goes on the run. Marion is also shown to be a fallen woman, a sexual deviant herself with no morals, not only is she a thief but she is also having an affair with a married man Sam Loomis, (John Gavin). Driving in torrential rain, she pulls into the Bates Motel, an eerie, remote motel off the beaten path. The motel is run by a ‘queer’ sort of young man, Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) who lives up in the brooding house on the hill, under the dominant authority of his cruel and elusive mother. As Poole puts it, Norman “remains locked in a disturbed world, and, as the film progresses, becomes murderously mad.”

Norman Bates: “A boy’s best friend is his mother.”

Norman is not a masculine figure, he is a mama’s boy who does his mother’s bidding. He is continually identified with his mother and, according to Freud and his psychological tunnel vision, would probably have evolved into a homosexual because of his Oedipal desires. Hitchcock perverts Freud’s narrow theory, by making sure the narrative shows Norman to be attracted to women, not men. It is when Norman’s arousal by the female body, that he dresses in frumpy dresses to represent his mother, who then takes over and annihilates the object of Norman’s desire. Many viewers assume that Norman is a repressed homosexual because he dressed in women’s clothing when manifesting his mother’s personality. Cross-dressing was stereotypically associated with homosexuality, however, Hitchcock’s film tries to make it clear that Norman is attracted to women from the very beginning with the seductive Marion. The concept of fluid sexuality was not understood in 1960, so conflating cross-dressing with homosexuality was a commonly misleading view.
Another interesting point that Jay Poole (Queering Hitchcock’s Classic) brings out is how the décor of the house is itself, queer. Referring to what he cites Foucault’s theory of ‘We Other Victorians’ which essentially invokes ‘the image of the imperial prude.’ Therefore the Bates house itself with its provincial Victorian style from a queer perspective represents the constraints of Victorian sexual expectations, which is — we do not speak of sex, and any relations are to remain between a heterosexual married couple in the privacy of their own bedroom. Norman is surrounded by this oppressive atmosphere and tries to fight his impulses and his carnal desires. He does this by dwelling in his mother’s house, hoping that she will control the voyeuristic, dirty lustful desire he is having about Marion.

Norman Bates: “People never really run away from anything. The rain didn’t last long, did it? You know what I think? I think that we’re all in our private traps, clamped in them, and none of us can ever get out. We scratch and we claw, but only at the air, only at each other, and for all of it, we never budge an inch.”

Marion Crane: “Sometimes we deliberately step into those traps.”

Norman Bates: “I was born in mine. I don’t mind it anymore.”

Psycho, is the first of Hitchcock’s films to break tradition from his usual cultured mystery/suspense tropes. He decided to present this narrative using a pallet of B&W to set up a different tonality. Without the use of the vivid colors that he often used with cinematographer Robert Burks. Psycho deals with a more graphic, monochromatic, psycho-sexual sickness. A sickness that erupts in unprecedented perversity and violence for the director. Hitchcock also kills off his heroine in the first 20 minutes of the film. Psycho, will forever be known for ‘the shower scene.’

It also brings to the screen one of THE most hauntingly intense scenes that will remain in the collective consciousness, for what it lacks in vivid bloodshed, it possesses an uncomfortable voyeuristic gaze that brings us into Norman’s mind with the twists and turns, it assaults us, because of its deeper brutality, a more queasy feeling of psychic angst and inverts our gaze, as Marion stares back at us with her lifeless eyes.

“It’s not like my mother is a maniac or a raving thing. She just goes a little mad sometimes. We all go a little mad sometimes. Haven’t you?”

In the 1950s into 1960 was a time when Americans were seeking out the American ideal, and cultural conformity. It was also a time when many audiences did not explore alternative sexualities and would have conflated homosexuality with a deviant and dangerous personality. Poole suggests “Hitchcock queers the image of sexual purity but reinforces naturalized heterosexuality as the film progresses… Hitchcock utilizes the Freudian explanation of homosexual development in his explanation of Norman’s development as a psychopathic killer despite Norman’s apparent heterosexual orientation.”

Hitchcock believed he made the perfect choice in casting Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates, the homicidal misfit who put on a dress and wig to embody his cruel mother. Norman became a serial killer with a fixation on his castrating mother because she dominated his life and turned him into a monster. Perkin’s himself soft-spoken, androgynous, even perhaps a slightly effete actor. Alfred Hitchcock envisioned another gay character whose inherent corrupted humanity stems from their conflict of being queer. By queer, it can refer to the process of shattering normalcy and vision from the perspective of a heternormative lens. Psycho takes the audience into a place of dis-ease, where seemingly ordinary people are capable of monstrous acts. If Hitchcock’s film is subverting the value of 1950s America, and the transgressive content of Psycho breaks from societal norms, then it can be read as a ‘queer’ film.

[voiceover in police custody, as Norman is thinking]” It’s sad, when a mother has to speak the words that condemn her own son. But I couldn’t allow them to believe that I would commit murder. They’ll put him away now, as I should have years ago. He was always bad, and in the end he intended to tell them I killed those girls and that man… as if I could do anything but just sit and stare, like one of his stuffed birds. They know I can’t move a finger, and I won’t. I’ll just sit here and be quiet, just in case they do… suspect me. They’re probably watching me. Well, let them. Let them see what kind of a person I am. I’m not even going to swat that fly. I hope they are watching… they’ll see. They’ll see and they’ll know, and they’ll say, “Why, she wouldn’t even harm a fly…”

As ‘Judith Butler’ Gender scholar, and ‘Hall’ speak of gender as performance, Hitchcock was clear in the way he developed Stephano and Bloch’s central characters in Psycho. In the final scene, the murderer is revealed and his inner monologues keep hidden, the source of a disturbed, untroubled ‘victim’ of faulty psychological development.’ The opening montage sets the scene for the dark thing that takes place inside ordinary towns and inside the minds of ordinary people. (source: Poole)

Psycho was a vehicle that queered what the public had come to expect from Hitchcock films, and,much like its real-life inspiration (Ed Gein), it queered the notion that America was a place where ‘normal,’ was defined as a quiet, safe, small town life, free from the darkness that lurds in modest roadside motels… With Psycho, Hitchcock abetted by Stefano’s script, would shock audiences with sexual innuendo, apparent nudity coupled with a sadistic stabbing scene. Perhaps most shocking of all, he would leave audiences wondering what might lie below the surface of family, friends neighbors and themselves.” (Jay Poole)

Rebecca (1940), was not one of Hitchcock’s favorite films at all. Adapted from the Gothic novel by Daphne du Maurier, the sick soul here is a menacing lesbian. The formidable Mrs. Danvers ( played by the equally formidable Judith Anderson) is the head Matron of Manderley, living in the shadows of the former Mrs. de Winter. She is a lovesick sapphic with an unnourished desire for her dead mistress, Rebecca. Manderley itself is like a hollow mistress that consumes those inside its ominous hallways. ‘Danny’ resents the new Mrs. de Winter and in one revelatory scene taunts her (Joan Fontaine) trying to drive her to suicide through her cruel torments. She parades Rebecca’s lingerie with a lustful smirk on her diabolical face, running her hands under the sheer, delicate fabric as if she were fondling Rebecca herself.

Mrs. Danvers’ jealousy of Maxime de Winters’ new bride is driven by obsession, a lesbian-coded manifestation, one of jealousy and sexual desire. For Joan Fontaine’s character, Danvers reenacts through storytelling, all the attention she used to lavish on her beloved mistress, running her bath, brushing her hair, admiring the finery of her monogrammed pillowcases. Though Rebecca is only seen as the painting of an alluring woman her ghost haunts Manderley and the new Mrs. de Winter.

In Hollywood movies of the 1940s, coded lesbian characters were far less common than coded gay men. Portrayals of lesbians might define them as dangerous and threatening, as is the case with Mrs. Danvers. Mrs. Danvers implies that she had been married. This allowed Hitchcock's deniability against Judith Anderson’s lesbianism But Mrs. Danver’s eventual demise is brought about by her inability to accept Rebecca’s death or allow anyone to replace her love. And so her desire consumes her literally, in fire.

The Lady Vanishes (1938)

When I first saw Charters (Basil Radford) and Caldicott (Naughton Wayne) in The Lady Vanishes my radar went off like a firehouse siren during the scene where they are both sitting up together in a small bed, one wearing the pajama tops and the other wearing the bottoms, (giving the appearance of both being naked in bed. It was such a marvelous coded moment and I knew they were a loving married gay couple. I found it so refreshing to see the British comedy duo playing a cheeky proper English couple who are cricket fanatics trying to get back to London while the Hitchcockian espionage is happening under their noses.

I enjoyed their farcical vignette about a pair of golfers, the one comedic entry in an otherwise moody collection of ghost stories- Dead of Night (1945) which like The Lady Vanishes, also stars Michael Redgrave.

Hitchcock excelled at getting fine performances from his supporting cast members. They usually are finely honed characterizations portrayed by perfectly cast actors, fascinating and funny, imbued with his dry British humor. Charters and Caldicott are wonderful examples. Played by Basil Radford and Naunton Wayne, two fine stage actors who reprised these characters in subsequent movies and BBC radio programs, Charters and Caldicott follow a long tradition of comedy duos of older men in British Music Hall, vaudeville and stage performances. Most audiences of the time, especially British audiences, would have interpreted their relationship simply as one between eccentric, middle-aged bachelors. (Badman and Hosier)

Though there are so many elements of the duo that is ambiguous, Hitchcock imbues Charters and Caldicott with an affection and closeness that reads like a positively coded gay pairing. The two aren’t played as stereotypically flamboyant or campy. Later in the movie, Charters and Caldicott are heroic in facing down danger, during an onslaught of gunfire by fascist spies.

Charters and Caldicott are stranded at the only hotel in a tiny alpine village. The desk clerk informs them that they must share the maid's room. When they meet the voluptuous Germanic blonde, they glance at each other with an expression that appears to be saying they’re not interested. When they follow the maid to her cramped room, Charter cracks “It’s a pity they couldn’t have given us one each” which could be interpreted as each having their own woman, to have a bit of a romp with. But Charters clarifies himself by saying he meant two rooms. One for the maid and one for them. A mainstream audience could read their conduct as two heterosexual British gentlemen, but if you read between the lines, it is suggested that they have no interest in women. In another scene when the maid enters their shared room without knocking, both men act startled by the intrusion. Caldicott moves in a way that conjures up the role of a protective mate. Once she leaves, Caldicott locks the door.

A master of queering the screen, Hitchcock plays with sexuality using his skillful methods of innuendo and artful suggestiveness "” In an already masterful way of blurring the lines of reality and adeptly flirting with transgression, Hitchcock's milieus are perfect playgrounds for coded gay characters.

Continue reading “Chapter 3 – Queers and Dykes in the Dark: Classic, Noir & Horror Cinema’s Coded Gay Characters:” →

Chapter 1: Queers and Dykes in the Dark: Classic, Noir & Horror Cinema’s Coded Gay Characters:

"I wish to join the Legion of Decency, which condemns vile and unwholesome moving pictures. I unite with all who protest against them as a grave menace to youth, to home life, to country and to religion. I condemn absolutely those salacious motion pictures which, with other degrading agencies, are corrupting public morals and promoting a sex mania in our land… Considering these evils, I hereby promise to remain away from all motion pictures except those which do not offend decency and Christian morality."

"”Catholic Legion of Decency pledge

And now here at The Last Drive In, the subject of “The Third Sex in the Shadows of Cinema.”

Clifton Webb as Hardy Cathcart in The Dark Corner 1946 directed by Henry Hathaway. Waldo Lydecker: “I’m not kind, I’m vicious. It’s the secret of my charm.”

“Oh, it’s sad, believe me, Missy, when you’re born to be a sissy without the vim and voive…” -Bert Lahr as the Cowardly Lion in The Wizard of Oz (1939)

Growing up as a gay woman, though gender and sexuality are fluid, there was not a well spring of characters in film or television that I could grab onto as a buoy for my burgeoning self-awareness – I was ‘different than the others.’ Though there are the obvious icons who became heroes and heroines to many of us because of their peerless image. And while films could not overtly represent ‘queerness’ directly, they could posit mixed messages and a whole generation of us could understand the subtext, unsheltered from an array of homophobic language.

We still had Barbara Stanwyck, Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, Marlene Dietrich, and Greta Garbo, who gave us immortal androgyny– there was no one who could shatter the silence, and ceremoniously ring the bells out in the open. There were no ‘obvious’ gay role models. We had to create that worship ourselves through iconography and a variety of sublime, convention-smashing signals. For those of us who knew how to look in the dark corners, right under your nose, corners, or should I say coded corners.

There’s one thing I want to be very clear about. I am not asserting that the actors themselves were gay in their personal lives, but that what was coded was merely the particular characters they played in the film. Or that the narrative might seemingly be ‘queer’. Which I will go on to explain. Particular actors or directors’ private lives are not up for conversation unless they were clearly open about themselves and their influences on their artistic work.

For instance, I am not saying that I suspect Doris Day is a lesbian, just that the character of Calamity Jane is throwing out messages for those of us ‘in the life,’ to feel a special affinity. Using comforting symbology gives us a place in the universe, especially when the story is presented by the stars we most admire. Not all coded gay characters are portrayed by gay actors, and not all coded comedy, jokes, or situations denotes that the character themselves are gay, just that the humor is cannily made to be queer at the moment. It can be an off-the-center remark that speeds by almost unnoticed except for the sake of the hurried laugh or two. Sometimes it’s all subjective and at times it’s pretty obvious which way the deliberate wind blows.

(Stacey) categorizes her range of material into several kinds of identification broadly dividing them into two categories. "Cinematic identifcatory fantasies" "”devotion, worship transcendence, inspiration are proper to the act of spectatorship and appear to be based primarily on difference from the star ideal and "extra-cinematic identifactory practices" "”imitation and consumption "”attempt to close the gap between subject and star even as they take place outside cinema.

The worship of Doris Day is not surprising, she was one of the top box office draws of the 1950s. Day performs a cross-dressing role in the biopic of a legendary lesbian. Indeed, Day and Calamity Jane in particular in which the star sings both "Secret Love" and a duet with another, feminine character called " a woman's touch" are regularly cited by lesbians as crucial cinematic texts. (Jackie Stacey’s Star Gazing)

There was a period when Peter Lorre, George Sanders (and his equally effete brother Tom Conway), Anne Revere, Judith Anderson, and Agnes Moorehead played movie villains, fanatics, or oddballs. Each of these actors suggested queerness in their androgynous personas. Each became an iconic character actor of classic cinema.

Characters like Ernest Thesiger as Dr. Pretorius, Clifton Webb’s Waldo Lydecker in Laura (1944), Judith Anderson in Rebecca (1940), or Gloria Holden as Countess Zaleska in Dracula’s Daughter (1936), stood out to us, though they were despicable and unwelcoming characters. Although I see Gloria Holden’s character as strangely sympathetic. Usually, queerness that was veiled behind a coded role, exhibited a disturbed or desperate personality. They might be a person who is ambiguous in their maleness or femininity. And at times, they were full-on, deadly.

However, there was so little for those of us who are part of the ‘hidden audience’, we needed to catch sight of something familiar. That meant grabbing onto whatever little crumbs were thrown to us. So whether those characters were inherently insensate evil had nothing to do with our empathy or revulsion. The real power lay in the ability to identify with the essence of ‘otherness’ and more to do with familiarity and belonging. I longed to find that ‘something‘ that signified a relative identification of their sexuality. To see that subtle finger motioning, come closer, you’re in the right place kiddo, you’re one of us. Andrea Weiss writes: “[In the 1930s] for a people who were striving toward self-knowledge, Hollywood stars became important models in the foundation of gay identity.”

The films I have uncovered throughout my endeavor to write this immense blog post, either commonly fall within the queer canon or can be liberally dissected and/or challenged. We can read into any film if we so choose. I am merely putting it out to you that these films do seem to meet the criteria for coded queer paradigms. I also began this piece thinking that in order to understand the evolution of coded characters, you first have to look at the origin of the queer presence in silent and Pre-Code films, and how the Code influenced and constructed the way being queer had to be hidden in plain sight.

I echo Susie Bright, in her feelings that we (the queer community) would hang on to anything close to a hint of gayness, and it would change the whole world of the motion picture, just to see that famously analyzed moment when Marlene Dietrich plants that sensuous kiss on a woman’s lips in Josef von Sternberg’s Morocco 1930. Or the first cinematic lesbian romance when vamp Louise Brooks slinks on the dance floor with her androgynous female admirer Alice Roberts as Countess Anna Geschwitz in director GW Pabst’s Pandora’s Box (1929).

The boldly androgynous Marlene showcased another masculine appearance when she ascends the throne at the end of The Scarlet Empress (1934).

Greta Garbo portrays the Swedish monarch who declares herself not an “old maid” but “a bachelor” in Queen Christina (1933)

Because of the social relationship between non-normative gender and sexuality and the symbology of fashion and the role of work, women only had to dress like their male counterparts and be employed in a man’s job to seem queer. In the movie directed by George Cukor, What Price Hollywood? (1932), the very drunk filmmaker notices a woman having lunch at a fashionable Hollywood restaurant. The drunks inquiry goes like this, “I beg your pardon, old man… who’s your tailor?

In Victor Fleming’s Red Dust (1932), Jean Harlow is adorable as Vantine as she handles the heat and hands out the jibes.

Other members of the lesbian parade inhabit spaces that, as with the men, connote queerness. Consider the lesbian couples in the Greenwich Village dive in Call Her Savage (1932), seated alongside male same-sex couples while pansy entertainers, dressed as maids, perform for their amusement. Mannishly garbed women barflies, sometimes wielding cigars, often pal around with men, or sometimes confuse and emasculate them, in Lawyer Man (1932), Grand Slam (1933), and Blood Money (1933). (Lugowski)

Blood Money (1933) Rowland Brown’s atmospheric jaunt that embraces the gritty underworld, includes racy subjects like sadomasochism, empowered women, and fluid sexuality. Kathlyn Williams credited as the “Nightclub Woman Wearing Monocle”, is a beautiful androgynous off-cut in the film. In one notable scene George Bancroft as Bill Bailey enters Ruby Darling’s (Judith Anderson) nightclub and comes across a young woman at the bar, dressed in a man's tuxedo and sporting a monocle. Baily offers her a cigar. She smells it and nonchalantly mocks the husky guy, “Why, you big sissy!” and hands it back to him. The nature of this adventurous passage into a subversive world generated a lot of sexual tension. With Blood Money, the subject of homosexuality is a non-issue, belonging to a subculture that invites those who are outsiders.

In Blood Money and Call Her Savage, "¨homosexuality is just another pocket of an underworld that exists outside the law. When George Bancroft warns a timid taxi driver not to betray his destination to the police, he threatens, “Lissen fag” -and is rebuked by Judith Anderson for “scaring the little fellow half to death.”

Keeping along the lines of the connection between women working at men’s jobs, within a wide range of social status, you can see this example in Heat Lightning (1934) starring interestingly handsome actress Aline MacMahon when she, covered in grease, working on cars in her desert garage/gas station wearing a filthy jumpsuit and hair wrapped in a bandana. She sheds her desire to be desired by men, and exudes a solitary quality, as if she has given up on, performing femininity for men. She seems independent and strong and in her ‘male’ attire, you can see her projecting a queer attitude, though the film deposits a past love interest with bad boy Preston Foster as a distraction. The attraction is doomed from the start.

Olga (MacMahon) balances the duality of loving Preston Foster, donning her "˜womanly' dress when she decides to submit to a heterosexual liaison which goes wrong. Then she shuns the idea of her femininity, re-asserting her hyper-masculine posture in greasy mechanics overalls and once again hiding her ravenous hair under her bandana, to protect herself from performing as a straight woman again.

To be clear it is not my belief that she’s not “all woman,” even using these props to represent masculinity. She is not truly changing her gender but for the purposes of the narrative, in the movie’s time period, it suggests a superficial interpretation of gender for our spectatorship.

In Jame’s Whales’ The Kiss Before the Mirror (1933) there is a sophisticated female lawyer Hilda Frey (Jean Dixon) who is stern and stiff-backed, and is dressed in severe clothing, a “new kind of woman” which allows for an undercurrent of lesbianism.

In The Kiss Before the Mirror (1933), Nancy Carroll as Maria Held is a career-oriented lawyer, who wears men’s suits and considers herself a “new woman.” There are tinges of heterosexuality, which serve to shield her character from scrutiny. But, she does appraise heterosexuality in vaguely cynical terms. She talks to another woman about a case where the husband has murdered his wife, “At least no one will ever murder me.” She also responds to, “What are you? A lawyer, or a new kind of woman?” by saying, “By day, I’m a lawyer. At night, well, you might be surprised.” Either it went undetected by the SRC (Studio Relations Committee) or they felt that the connotations of her lesbianism were ambiguous enough to slip by an unsophisticated audience.

We learn to watch out for signs that there are ‘others’ out there on the screen – those we can relate to. A young person exposed to old films, as I grew older and dove head first into classic film with a critical eye, I could read those sign posts and cues that led me to become consciously aware of the invisible affinity laid out in plain site for me, and those of us who knew the secret whispers behind the storyline.

Women wearing men’s apparel, like Dietrich’s wonderful drag performance, kissing a woman in Morocco in 1930. Or Clifton Webb’s often effete superiority as with his character, Waldo Lydecker in Otto Preminger’s Laura 1944, or his role as Hardy Cathcart’s with a pathological objectification of his wife Mari’s aesthetic beauty in Henry Hathaway’s The Dark Corner. Greta Garbo in Queen Christina 1933– “I shall die a bachelor!” Gloria Holden’s vampiric desire to embrace the necks of beautiful young female models in Dracula’s Daughter 1936.

Nan Gray and Gloria Holden in Lambert Hillyer’s Dracula’s Daughter (1936)

The Production Code Administration (PCA) saw the obvious connection between vampirism and lesbian sexual desire in Dracula’s Daughter (1936) They only gave two warnings concerning the ‘queerness’ of Countess Zaleska and her thirst for young female victims. Universal, even hyped the idea that women were not safe from unnatural desire using this publicity catchphrase, “Save the women of London from Dracula’s Daughter!”

Throughout these films coded lesbian characters, scattered their rose petals of longing for their dead lost loves or the nymphs just out of their reach. There was tragedy within the tragedy of the horror story! As long as these queer women monsters also became victims, the PCA could negotiate its release, being comfortable with the narrative in that form.

The most overt representation of lesbians was her stylized look, a severely tailored suit, monocle, slicked back or bobbed short hair, or staunch, with a strait backed, severely repressive temperament. The coded dyke is typically less seen on screen than the pansy who enjoyed more of a character actor’s trademark in popular films. However, it could be said that covert lesbians are more subtle in their presence than their queer male counterparts – the sissy.

Major female stars could be seen as having indirect lesbian undertones, though their ambiguous sexuality might be camouflaged by their independent streak, their strong spirit or shaded by their exotic, mysterious nature. Thus we find some of our lesbian icons like Marlene Dietrich, Joan Crawford, Katharine Hepburn, Clara Bow, Greta Garbo, and Barbara Stanwyck. Lesbian vibes can often be signaled by a playful tomboyishness. And what we have is a diametrically opposed result, the pansy is perceived as failed manhood, but conversely the lesbian performing manhood is perceived as a threat.

And if they weren’t tomboys they could be man-less shrews, castrating viragos, or in need of a man, who can make her come to her senses, and give up her career and her disruptive way of life. The threat of strong women is still equal to the threat. The gay man elicits a laugh.

Thus, discourses about queer sexuality in this period are never purely homophobic against men. To a sizable extent, they have their basis in sexism against women, for it is the power of femininity, the “feminization” of 1930s culture mentioned, and the threat of working women “wearing the pants” that are being policed.

The metaphorical nature of the pants-wearing, money-earning woman attaining independence from men connoted lesbianism as a complete break from the interwoven financial and sexual economies of patriarchy. Thus, if “clothes make the man,” the wearing of pants in and of itself suggested a link to lesbianism that films of the time simultaneously offered as spectacle and punishment. (Lugowski)

In particular classical horror and science fiction films spoke to the sense of "otherness" installed in my psyche. That does not mean that I viewed things through a dark lens, but classical horror and science fiction are effusive metaphors and inherently philosophical. When some of us, like Frankenstein’s monster were figuratively chased with flaming torches, horror, and sci-fi movies afforded us shelter from the angry mob. Their use of mythic undertones and symbolic context provided for so many of us, psychic release and catharsis.

It’s also why I love and identify with the monster in classical horror films. The iconic or tragically fated monster has always been portrayed as the ‘other’. Gay people understand what it means to be an outsider. And filmmakers encoded that sui generis into our beloved classical horror genre. It worked like waving that meaningful finger at the audience, saying, you found us, we’re here.

WHAT IS A CODED GAY CHARACTER?

CODED–verb [with object] 1 convert (the words of a message) into a particular code in order to convey a secret meaning: "¢ express the meaning of (a statement or communication) in an indirect or euphemistic way: (as adjective coded)

films allude to homosexual meanings in more of less coded ways. From today’s perspective, one can view these films as excellent examples of the very discourse of the closet-they employ connotative and symbolic meanings to signify homosexuality for those ‘in the know’ while ostensibly being about something else. Such connotative meanings were the way homosexuality could be signified under the dictates of the Hollywood Production Code.

Although it was continually challenged throughout the 1950s (by films such as The Moon is Blue 1953 and Baby Doll 1956) The Production Code still exerted a profound effect on the content on Hollywood film, especially in relations to homosexual themes. The Production Code Administration (PCA) edited queer backstories and subtexts of the film adaptations of Tennessee William’s plays A Street Car Named Desire (1951) , Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958) and Vincente Minnelli’s film of the Broadway hit Tea and Sympathy… (Jeffrey Sconce)

 

Continue reading “Chapter 1: Queers and Dykes in the Dark: Classic, Noir & Horror Cinema’s Coded Gay Characters:” →

The Little Foxes that Spoil the Vines:

THE LITTLE FOXES (1941)

At the turn of the century, the ruthless Hubbard clan spread their greed and opportunistic fervor all throughout the South. Bette Davis commands the screen once again playing the hard-hearted Matriarch Regina who keeps an iron hold on her lovely daughter Alexandra (Teresa Wright). Regina is separated from her husband Horace (Herbert Marshall) who suffers from a serious heart ailment and is living in a sanitarium being treated by doctors in Baltimore. Regina summons her husband after her two conniving brothers Charles Dingle as Ben Hubbard and Carl Benton Reid as Oscar Hubbard conspire to make a killing by forging a lucrative merger with a Chicago cotton magnet. In order to come up with their part of the investment they must rely on Horace’s part of the money. Horace has been estranged from the family and his bitter wife and has no intention of releasing any part of his money to the cunning Hubbard siblings.

Oscar is married to Birdie whom he only married for her money and her family’s plantation which once he owned both begins to abuse her psychologically and verbally to the point that she takes to talking incessantly to anyone who will listen and quietly drinking away her sadness. Trapped in a loveless marriage, and receiving the brunt of such distasteful ire by her husband. She is like a sweet flower that has been trampled upon by the brutal ugly want of greed. Birdie is brought to life by one of the great character actors I can imagine, the wonderful Patricia Collinge who manages to make her pain seem so palpable it’s almost unbearable to watch.

Birdie doesn’t even like her own son Oscar who is already showing signs of the father’s avarice. Leo is played by another favorite of mine, the versatile Dan Duryea, who manages to play a smarmy noodlehead. One of the lighter characters of the film is Jessie Grayson as the unflappable and sagacious Addie the maid who is the true person who keeps the household going smoothly. Richard Carlson plays David Hewitt who encourages Zanda to break away from under her mother’s thumb. The music by Max Steiner has his signature emotional washes of grand mood and the cinematographer Gregg Toland creates a claustrophobic chamber piece for the incredible ensemble cast to work their magic.

Here is one of the most powerfully consequential scenes of the film:

The beautiful heart that pulses within the rotten venomous soul of this old Southern Hubbard family, are those who in this one scene sum up all the love and compassion that director William Wyler presents to us with the help of Lillian Hellman.

This is your EverLovin’ Joey saying The Last Drive In has Tender Grapes!