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.” →

Chapter 4 – Queers and Dykes in the Dark: Classic, Noir & Horror Cinema’s Coded Gay Characters:

CODED CLASSIC HORROR THEORY “The Uncanny & The Other”

“Scenes of excessive brutality and gruesomeness must be cut to an absolute minimum.”

“As a cultural index, the pre-Code horror film gave a freer rein to psychic turmoil and social disorientation because it possessed a unique freedom from censorship… the Hays Office admits that under the Code it is powerless to take a stand on the subject of ‘gruesomeness.‘(Thomas Doherty)

Horror films in particular have made for a fascinating case study in the evolving perceptions of queer presence; queer-horror filmmakers and actors were often forced to lean into the trope of the “predatory queer” or the “monstrous queer” to claim some sense of power through visibility and blatant expressions of sexuality.- Essential Queer Horror Films by Jordan Crucciola-2018

Though Hollywood execs refused to show explicit queerness, they were willing to pay for scripts that dealt with characters who were social outcasts and sexually non-normative. The horror genre is perhaps the most iconic coded queer playground, which seems to have an affinity with homosexuality because of its apparatus of ‘otherizing’ and the inherent representation of difference. The horror genre crosses over boundaries that include transgressions between heterosexuality and queerness. The villain, fiend, or monster plays around with a variety of elements that, while usually separate, might merge male and female gender traits.

The horror film, in particular, found its place asserting a queer presence on screen. The narratives often embraced tropes of the “˜predatory queer’ or the “˜monstrous queer’ in order to declare themselves visible while cinematic queers were elbowed out of the way. Filmmakers had to maneuver their vision in imaginative ways to subvert the structure laid out for them by the Code.

As Harry M. Benshoff explains in his book Monsters in the Closet: Homosexuality in the Horror Film, “Immediately before and during the years of World War II, Universal Studio’s horror films began to employ a more humanistic depiction of their monsters,” and the films of Val Lewton, like Cat People, reflected “a growing awareness of homosexuality, homosexual communities, and the dynamics of homosexual oppression as it was played out in society and the military.” So even though Hollywood execs refused to show explicit queerness, during the first true horror boom in American cinema, they were willing to pay for stories about social outcasts and sexually nonnormative figures. Horror fans thus found themselves awash in some of the genre’s most iconic queer-coded characters of all time.

On a Greek Island, Boris Karloff plays Gen. Nikolas Pherides in Val Lewton/Mark Robson’s Isle of the Dead, 1945. Driven insane by the belief that Thea (Ellen Drew), who suffers from catalepsy, is the embodiment of an evil vampiric force, is a demon called a vorvolaka. Lewton drew on collective fears, and all his work had an undercurrent of queer panic and a decipherable sign of homophobia.

The Vorvolaka has beset the island with plague. Thea- “Laws can be wrong, and laws can be cruel, and the people who live only by the law are both wrong and cruel.”

The Pre-Code era was exploding with American horror films that reflected the angst, social unrest, and emotional distress that audiences were feeling. Personified in films that used graphic metaphors to act as catharsis, the images were often filled with rage, as Thomas Doherty calls it ‘the quality of gruesomeness, cruelty and vengefulness’. Think of the angry mobs with their flaming torches who hunt down Frankenstein’s monster, eventually crucifying him like a sacrificial embodiment of their fury. James Whale’s adaptation of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein 1931 was a smash hit for Universal. Other studios were trying to ride the wave of the awakening genre of the horror picture. Paramount released director Rouben Mamoulian’s adaptation of the novella The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, by Scottish writer Robert Louis Stevenson, published in 1886. The film Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, which was released in 1931, stars Fredric March and Miriam Hopkins. During the Pre-Code period, many horror films proposed grisly subject matter that would shock and mesmerize the audience. For example, actor/director Irving Pichel’s The Most Dangerous Game (1932) starring Joel McCrea, Leslie Banks, and Fay Wray.

In 1932 Michael Curtiz directed Doctor X starring Lionel Atwill who would become one of the leading mad scientists of the genre.

Michael Curtiz’s macabre horror/fantasy experiment of homosocial ‘men doing science’, crossing over into profane territories and embracing dreadful taboos!

All scenes below are from Dr. X (1932).

Fay Wray is Atwill’s daughter who is the only woman surrounded by a group of scientific nonconformists.

The adaptation of Bram Stoker’s story of the Eastern European incubus was interpreted by Tod Browning in Dracula 1931, immortalized by Hungarian stage actor Bela Lugosi with his iconic cape and mesmerizing stare. While his nightly visitations were blood-driven and cinematically sexual in nature, there is a very homoerotic element to his influence over Renfield (Dwight Frye) and his gaze of gorgeous David Manners as John Harker.

Bela Lugosi looks down upon David Manners in a scene from the film ‘Dracula’, 1931. (Photo by Universal/Getty Images)

Robert Florey directed the macabre Murders in the Rue Morgue (1932) based on a story by Edgar Allan Poe. And a film that has no connection to Poe’s story but in the name is one of the most transgressive, disturbing horror films, rampant with vile taboos, such as necrophilia, incest, sadism, satanism, and flaying a man alive, is the unorthodox The Black Cat (1934). The film stars Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi, one of four pictures they would do together. A pair of enemies who have a score to settle, ghosts of a past war, and stolen love all take place against the backdrop of a stylish Bauhaus set design and high-contrast lighting.

Paramount released Murders in the Zoo (1933) with Lionel Atwill, a sadistic owner of a zoo who uses wild animals to ravage and kill off any of his wife’s (Kathleen Burke) suitors. Kathleen Burke is well known as the panther girl in Erle C. Kenton’s horrifically disturbing Island of Lost Souls 1932, an adaptation of master fantasy writer H.G. Wells’ The Island of Dr. Moreau. Incidentally, Welles, Laughton, and his wife, Elsa Lanchester, had been good friends earlier on, before the filming of Lost Souls. The film stars Charles Laughton as the unorthodox, depraved scientist who meddles with genetics and nature. He creates gruesome human/animals, torturing them with vivisection in his ‘house of pain.’ The film also stars Richard Arlen, Leila Hyams, and Bela Lugosi as The Sayer of the Law.

In 1933, King Kong showed a giant ape grasping the half-naked object of his affection, with unmentionable connotations of bestiality between the ape and Fay Wray. With scenes of Wray writhing in his gigantic paws, he lusts after her until his desire kills him. It’s almost like fantasy noir: the object of your desire will ultimately kill you!

The 1930s and 1940s Fear the Queer Monsters:

Re-assessing the Hitchcock Touch; by Wieland Schwanebeck -As Rhona Berenstein asserts, the horror genre “provides a primary arena for sexualities and practices that fall outside the purview of patriarchal culture, and the subgeneric tropes of the unseen, the host and the haunted house.”

By the same token, Kendra Bean concludes that Mrs. Danvers is portrayed as “a wraith; a sexual predator who is out to make Mrs. de Winter her next victim.”

Queer characters in horror films during the early period, reveal similarities between Mrs. Danvers and the staging of earlier sapphic characters, such as Gloria Holdens’s well-known portrayal of Countess Marya Zaleska in Dracula’s Daughter 1936. Yet, similar to the self-discipline of Mrs. Danvers, Dracula’s Daughter remains a figure of primacy and pity Ellis Hanson argues Dracula’s Daughter presents “the possibilities of a queer Gothic” early on in Hollywood history, “rich in all the paradox and sexual indeterminacy the word queer and the word Gothic imply.

There was a revival of the horror craze during the period of WWII. The Hollywood studios, both major and ‘Poverty Row” like Monogram and Republic, realized that horror movies were a lucrative business. The studios began to revisit the genre, looking for not only fresh formulas but they resurrected the classic monsters, dropping them into new plots. They also envisioned uniting gangster films with horror films, and this homogenizing led to a ‘queering’ of the two styles that demonstrated phallocentric ( guns, scientific penetration) and homoerotic themes and images into a sub-genre.

Public awareness of homosexuality reached a new height during these years, primarily due to the new set of social conditions wrought by war. Slowly , the love that dare not speak its name was being spoken, albeit in ways almost always obscurantist, punitive and homophobic. The linkage of homosexuality with violence and disease remained strong. Monsters in the Closet -Harry Benshoff

Rhona Berenstein, in her insightful book Attack of the Leading Ladies points out that films featuring the mad scientist trope operate with the homosocial principle, which speaks of the homoeroticism of males working together in consort subverting science together as a group of men who hide behind their objectification -the female object of their gaze, are in fact, figures of objectification themselves. They are simultaneously homosocial, homoerotic, and homophobic in aspect; … potentially possessing an extra-normative commitment between the two men.

Mad Doctor movies are homosocial in nature. The Mad Doctor movie is a subgenre that, below the surface, glorifies intimate male camaraderie and male homosexuality, and by the close of the picture, society, the prevailing culture, must, in turn, annihilate that which is repressed. However, it is not exclusively a vehicle to express homosexuality through homosocial interactions. There is a component not only of male bonding, but also a world without women; the thrust is a synthesis of misogyny and patriarchal tyranny and oppression of women. Homosocial relationships between men in these science horrors show the man’s desire for connection to other men, even one created by his own hand.

According to Twitchell in his Dreadful Pleasures and Attack of the Leading Ladies, Rona Berenstein, Colin Clive as Dr. Frankenstein in all three Universal pictures, was at least performing bisexuality. Whale’s 1933 Frankenstein might give way to the homosocial realm of the mad scientist trope of ‘homoerotic indulgence’ as these men exclude women from the pursuit of their fulfillment. Twitchell views the scientist’s fluid sexuality in order to examine the concept of a man controlling women’s primacy of giving birth. This might explain Dr. Frankenstein’s venture into unnatural reproduction—a process he wants to divert to himself without women’s exclusive right to motherhood. In the scene where he is as close to giving birth to a full-grown man, he seems to display sexual arousal when his creation comes to life. Henry Frankenstein provokes nature and defies his heterosexuality. As Whale was an openly gay director in Hollywood, it can be pondered whether he knew exactly what he was suggesting. Thesiger’s sexually ambiguous, or okay, not so ambiguous Dr. Pretorius, the mad scientist who pressures Henry Frankenstein to revitalize his experiments and create a mate for the monster. Pretorius is the scientist who insists that Henry continue his creative efforts in Bride of Frankenstein. Vitto Russo called Thesiger, a “man who played the effete sissy”¦ with much verve and wit.”

George Zucco, like Lionel Atwill, often portrayed the unorthodox scientist who flirted with taboos. He plays mad scientist Dr. Alfred Morris in The Mad Ghoul (1943) As a university chemistry professor, he exploits medical student Ted Allison (David Bruce) with his experimental gas that transforms Ted into a malleable, yielding macabre ghoul, whom Morris directs to kill and remove the victim’s hearts using the serum to temporarily bring Ted back from his trance like death state. David Bruce’s character is represented as a ‘queer’ sort of young man. He is not quite masculine and is unable to get his girlfriend, Evelyn Ankers, to fall in love with him. As the Mad Ghoul, he becomes a monstrous queer.

In 1932, director Tod Browning’s Dracula was based on Bram Stoker’s story of a fiendish vampire who, in a sexually implicit way, violates his victims by penetrating them with his fangs. The story pushed the boundaries of storytelling, and there was an inherent subtext of ‘queer’ ravishment when he sucks the blood of Dwight Frye to make him his loyal servant.

In Jonathan Harker’s Journal, the protagonist recounts his impressions of his interaction with the vampire, Dracula “As the Count leaned over me and his hands touched me I could not repress a shudder. It may have been that his breath was rank, but a horrible feeling of nausea came over me, which do what I would, I could not conceal.” For (Noël Carroll) the entry in his diary conveys revulsion by the Count’s closeness and offensive presence, which causes him to become sickened.

But it also could be read that Harker’s ‘shudder’ is not about his revulsion, but rather, an uncontrolled sexual response to the vampire’s looming over him, which could be interpreted not just as hunger for his ‘blood’ but an expression of repressed sexual desire and the fear it causes.

Horror movies have always pushed the boundaries of normalcy, by virtue of the fact that these films are inhabited by ‘monsters’, something ‘queerly’ different. And it is natural to observe two diverging responses to the impact of the horror genre and often, its persecution of what is ‘different’ and the source of what causes our anxiety.

Dracula may appear as the image of a man, but the count is far from human. While monsters in classical horror films are based on systems of maleness, they are split from being actual men. Although there are physical interactions and suggestive contact with the heroine, there isn’t the foundation of heterosexuality, but something quite deviant within their aggressively erotic encounters and/or assaults. The understanding of sexuality and the most narrow identifications that are assigned to varying orientations in a large sense is not translatable for the deeper layers of the monster and their relationship to their victims. In Hollywood, horror films can be seen as heterosexuality being invaded by an abhorrent outside force; inherent in the underlying message could be racism, classism, sexism, and gay panic. Though it can be interpreted as a landscape of heterosexuality that is in the full power of its universal presence, horror films are perfect platforms that can illustrate the collapse of heterosexuality and the subversion of sexuality.

The horror genre is a breeding ground for portrayals of the shattering of heterosexual power. This can be seen in Lambert Hillyer’s Dracula’s Daughter (1936) starring Gloria Holden as the sapphic vampire who lives in a New Village-type artist’s den, which signals her outsider status from domesticity and normalcy.

In White Zombie (1932), Bela Lugosi plays the eerily menacing Legendre. He turns men into lifeless workers who run the sugar mill. Legendre also begins to turn the plantation owner, Charles Beaumont (Robert Frazer), into one of his zombies. His motivation for his control over people is ambiguous, though there seems to be sexual reasoning for both the beautiful Madeline (Madge Bellamy) and Beaumont. In the scene where Beaumont is nearly paralyzed, Legendre’s control over his male victim parallels the sexual entrapment of the movie’s heroine.

MAD LOVE (1935) I have conquered science! Why can’t I conquer love?

Karl Freund’s Grand Guignol Mad Love (1935) shifts from gazing at the female to gazing at the male. Here, the focus is on Peter Lorre in his American screen debut as Dr. Gogol, who has an obsession with Frances Drake as Yvonne Orlac, an actress who works at the Grand Guignol Theatre. To Gogol, she is the typified defenseless heroine whom he tries to lure away from her husband, Stephen (Colin Clive), using his knowledge of scientific alchemy.

Though Gogol tries to become Yvonne’s master, his Galatea, there are critics who read the struggle between the two men as not just a rivalry for Yvonne’s love but Gogol’s desire for Stephen as well. Gogol is responsible for grafting new hands onto Stephen’s mangled body after a train crash. Mad Love could fit the criteria for the subgenre of science/horror films where the male gaze is diverted from the female object toward other men, in this case, what connected the two was the preservation of Stephen’s hands. Why, then, is it not possible that the focus could shift from Gogol’s attraction to Yvonne to the homosocial dynamics between Gogol as a doctor and his subject, Stephen?

Mad Love possesses some of the horror genre’s most tenacious performances of gender play. (Carol Clover) asks us to take a closer look at Freund’s film. It is less about the “suffering experienced by women, but at a deeper, more sustained level, it is dedicated to the unspeakable terrors endured by men.”

In a similar fashion to Waldo Lydecker’s (Laura) and Hardy Cathcart’s (The Dark Corner) pathology of objectifying Laura and Mari, Gogol worships Yvonne – his Galatea, with a measure of scopophilia that lies within his gaze upon the perfection of female beauty. To control and possess it. The pleasure is aroused by the mere indulgence of looking at her.

Gogol pays 75 francs to purchase the wax statue of Galatea. The seller remarks, “There’s queer people on the streets of Montmartre tonight.”

Gogol’s maid, Francoise, talks to the statue, “Whatever made him bring you here. There’s never been any woman in this house except maybe me… “I prefer live ones to dead ones.”

A Time Magazine review of Mad Love in 1933 notes this queer appeal directly, even comparing Lorre’s acting skills to those of another homosexual coded actor: I find the comment about their faces rude and insulting to both Lorre and Laughton, both of whom I am a tremendous fan.

Mad Love’s insane doctor is feminized throughout the film… In fact, the same reporter who noted Gogol’s sadism argues for his feminine demeanor: “Lorre, perfectly cast, uses the technique popularized by Charles Laughton of suggesting the most unspeakable obsessions by the roll of a protuberant eyeball, an almost feminine mildness of tone, an occasional quiver of thick lips set flat in his cretinous ellipsoidal face. This reviewer came closer than any other to articulate the subtext of mad doctor movies. He seems on the verge of noting that Lorre, Like Laughton is an effeminate madman obsessed by unspeakable homosocial desire. – Attack of the Leading Ladies: Gender Sexuality and Spectatorship in Classic Horror Cinema by Rhona Berenstein.

Frances Drake’s heroine masquerades as a wife who deludes herself into believing that her husband is more masculine than he really is. Gogol has a curious empathy with Stephen, whom he touches frequently and prolonged. Although Gogol pursues the heroine, Yvonne, at the theater, forcing a kiss on her, his focus is primarily manipulating Stephen’s body, rejoining his hands and massaging them to stimulate life back into them. When he realizes that Stephen’s hands cannot be grafted back successfully to his wrists, he turns to another man, the hands of a knife thrower who was executed as a notorious murderer. Once Stephen recovers from the surgery, he can no longer continue as a concert pianist, but does develop the desire to throw sharp knives.

On the surface, the plot of Mad Love appears to be a heterosexual obsession; the most unspoken context is the connection between Gogol and Stephen. “As is true of Frankenstein’s labor of love in Whale’s first film, Gogol sews men’s body parts together, and the result is a monster of sorts. (Berenstein)

In the film’s climax, Yvonne hides in Gogol’s bedroom and pretends to be the wax statue of Galatea. When Gogol touches the statue, she lets out a scream. In a euphoric daze (as in the original story), he believes that he has the power to bring Galatea’s statue to life. Yvonne begs him to let her go as he tries to strangle her.

Stephen then rushes to his wife and holds her in his arms. With his eyes fixed on the offscreen space in which Gogol’s body lies, he croons: “My darling.” The homosocial desire is destroyed when Stephen murders Gogol who intones, “Each man kills the thing he loves”“” echoing on the soundtrack.

In the film’s closing moments, the secret desire is finally spoken out loud…Has Stephen killed the man he loves? Given that the phrase that Gogol mutters was written originally by Oscar Wilde, whose homosexuality scandalized the British social and legal system in 1895, reading the homosocial desire into Mad Love within the very last moments, we are left to decipher the suspended cues. We are left with Stephen’s gazing at Gogol’s face and his knifed body as he lay dying, he speaks the words, “˜My darling” while the camera frames the two men sharing that moment in the closing scene.

The mad doctor narrative is particularly predisposed to homosocial impulses. “intense male homosocial desire as at once the most compulsory and the most prohibited of social bonds” – Epistemology of the Closet (Sedgwick)

Sedgwick investigated early fantasy/horror novels, Shelley’s Frankenstein 1818, Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde 1886, and Wells’ The Island of Dr. Moreau 1895. At the beginning of the 1930s, these stories centered around mad doctors who delved into unorthodox, profane explorations and were all adapted to the screen. All of these nefarious or scientific, inquisitive men cultivated secret experiments, challenging the laws of nature. What Sedgwick found was that the Gothic literary representations of men performing homosocial collaborations were ‘not socially sanctioned and shunned.’

It was considered a necessary narrative element as well as a monstrous possibility that threatened to subvert the status quo. The combination of these two attitudes is expressed in homosocial narratives- male bonding is both horrifying and guaranteed, entailing the simultaneous introjection and expulsion of femininity. (Sedgwick)

“My darling”…

James Whale was a gay auteur who often imbued his work intentionally or with the ‘intentional fallacy’ of a ‘queer’ sense of dark humor. This comical, campy absurdity was always on the edge of his vision of horror and subtle profanity. His picture, The Invisible Man (1933), adapted from H.G. Wells’s story and starring Claude Rains, was classified as a horror film by the Code.

Dr. Jack Griffin (Rains), the antihero, is a frenzied scientist addicted to his formula as he seeks the ability to make himself invisible. His sanity begins to ‘vanish’ as his hunger for power, delusions of grandeur, and bursts of megalomania grow out of control. He plans on assassinating government officials, and he becomes more belligerent the longer he turns invisible. The idea that he displays radical ideas and runs around in the nude didn’t seem to arouse the censors; in 1933, a letter from James Wingate to Hays states, “highly fantastic and exotic [sic] vein, and presents no particular censorship difficulties.”

What’s interesting about the presentation of the story is that the coded gay leitmotifs were paraded out, right under the Code’s noses, and didn’t stir any indignation for its ‘queer’ humor.

Gloria Stuart and Claude Rains in James Whale’s The Invisible Man 1933

The Invisible Man perpetrates campy assaults on all the ‘normal’ people in his way, with intervals of sardonic cackles and golden wit and, at the same time, a menacing reflection of light and shadow. Claude Rains is a concealed jester who makes folly of his victims.

“An invisible man can rule the world. Nobody will see him come, nobody will see him go. He can hear every secret. He can rob, and wreck, and kill.” –Dr. Jack Griffin (The Invisible Man)

Claude Rains plays Dr. Jack Griffin, an outsider (a favorite of James Whale’s characters) who discovers the secret of invisibility, which changes him from a mild yet arrogant scientist into a maniacal killer. The film bears much of Whale’s campy sense of humor, with Griffin’s comic shenanigans abound until things turn dark and he becomes uncontrollably violent. “We’ll begin with a reign of terror, a few murders here and there, Murders of great men, Murders of little men, just to show we make no distinction. I might even wreck a train or two… just these fingers around a signalman’s throat, that’s all.”

According to Gary Morris (Bright Lights Film Journal), ‘The film demands crypto-faggot reading in poignant scenes such as the one where he reassures his ex-girlfriend, who begs him to hide from the authorities: “the whole world’s my hiding place. I can stand out there amongst them in the day or night and laugh at them.”

Though Griffin’s (Claude Rains) character is unseen at times, there are potent moments when he is animated as he skips to the tune, “Here we go gathering nuts in May,” flitting around like a fairy.

It is suggested that The Invisible Man is a metaphor for the way homosexuals are seen/not seen by society – as “effeminate, dangerous when naked, seeking a male partner in “crime,” tending to idolize his fiance rather than love her, and becoming ‘visible’ only when shot by the police…monitored by doctors, and heard regretting his sin against God (i.e., made into a statistic by the three primary forces oppressing queers: the law, the medical establishment, and religious orthodoxy” (Sedgwick)

The Invisble Man [undressing] “They’ve asked for it, the country bumpkins. This will give them a bit of a shock, something to write home about. A nice bedtime story for the kids, too, if they want it”

Continue reading “Chapter 4 – Queers and Dykes in the Dark: Classic, Noir & Horror Cinema’s Coded Gay Characters:” →

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:” →

Postcards From Shadowland No. 14

12_angry_men_1957
12 Angry Men (1957) Directed by Sidney Lumet Lee J. Cobb, E.G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Edward Binns, Jack Warden, Henry Fonda, Joseph Sweeney, Ed Begley, George Voskovec… also stars John Fiedler, Martin Balsam and Robert Webber
Broken Blossoms
Broken Blossoms (1919) Starring Lillian Gish as Lucy the girl.
C cigarettegirl
The Cigarette Girl from Mosselprom (Moscow) 1924 Directed by Yuri Zhelyabuzhsky -starring Yuliya Solntseva as Zina Vesenina- the cigarette girl
Christmas Holiday
Christmas Holiday (1944) Directed by Robert Siodmak-starring Deanna Durbin & Gene Kelly
Curse-of-the-Demon-2
Curse of the Demon (1957) Directed by Jacques Tourneur-Starring Dana Andrews, Peggy Cummins and Niall MacGinnis
Diana-Dors-My-Wifes-Lodger-28310_5
Diana Dors as Eunice Higginbotham in My Wife’s Lodger (1952)
harry-woods-call-of-the-savage
Directed by Lew Landers Harry Woods is Borno in- Call of the Savage (1935)
Hi Dante's Inferno devil
L’Inferno 1911, Dante Alighieri “A Divina Comédia”, Directed by Giuseppe de Liguoro.
seaHawkmers-1924-02-g
The Sea Hawk 1924 Directed by Frank Lloyd
Hodiak and Bankhead in Lifeboat
Alfred Hitchcock’s Lifeboat (1944) cinematic stage play with the vast scope of the Ocean and the claustrophobic air of desperation. Brilliant performances by Tallulah Bankhead and John Hodiak looking his hunkiest best…
Ingmar Bergman's Virgin Spring
The Virgin Spring (1960) directed by Ingmar Bergman-disturbing journey of revenge
J Gilda
Gilda (1946) directed by Charles VIdor and stars the magnificent Rita Hayworth in the title role Gilda Mundson Farrell, here dancing with Glenn Ford. A film noir classic
Last Tango in Paris
Last Tango in Paris 1972 directed by Bernardo Bertolucci-stars Marlon Brando and Maria Schneider as a pair of angst filled lovers whose relationship is based on sex & death
ManMadeMonster2-1
Man Made Monster 1941 starring Lionel Atwill as the deranged Dr Rigas
monsieur Verdoux
Monsieur Verdoux 1947 directed by and starring Charles Chaplin-brilliant dark comedy of murder and anti-conformity.
Night of the Hunter Gish & Co.
Charles Laughton’s oneric fable of childhood terrors, the bonds of friendship and the plight of Love vs Hate… Beautifully filmed- starring Lillian Gish as Rachel Cooper and Robert Mitchum as the diabolical Harry Powell in Night of the Hunter (1955)
Peggy+Ann+Garner_jane+eyre
Jane Eyre 1943 directed by Robert Stevenson starring Peggy Ann Garner is young Jane.
Plunder Road
Plunder Road (1957) directed by Hubert Cornfeld, perhaps one of the most edgy crime story film noirs headed up Gene Raymond and Elisha Cook Jr.
Robert Ryan in The Set Up
The Set-Up (1949) Robert Ryan stars as boxer Stoker in Robert Wise’s extraordinary noir film centered around the boxing ring and a down on his luck fighter that still has a lot of fight left in him. One of my favorite film noir classics, much to do with Ryan’s performance and Milton R. Krasner’s cinematography…
saboteur norman-lloyd-
the Wonderful Norman Lloyd in Alfred Hitchcock’s Saboteur 1942
Seconds
Rock Hudson is psychologically and physically spun around on his head in Seconds 1966 by John Frankenheimer- A story about that precious commodity… one’s identity
Seeds of Sin 1968 Andy Milligan
SEEDS (1968) Directed by Andy Milligan- it’s seedy and low budget and the perfect exploitative indulgence…
Shack Out on I0I
Shack Out on 101 (1955) different styled film noir starring Lee Marvin as Slob.. directed by Edward Dein and co-stars Terry Moore and Frank Lovejoy
ship of fools
Stanley Kramer directs this incredible ensemble of actors in Ship of Fools (1965) Here showing George Segal, Michael Dunn and Lee Marvin
somwhere in the night john hodiak
John Hodiak tries to remember in Somewhere in the Night (1946) -a taut amnesia themed noir with great characters. Directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz. Here with Fritz Kortner as Anzelmo or Dr Oracle.
streetwithnonamebmp
Street With No Name (1948) starring Mark Stevens and directed by William Keighly -This film noir also stars Richard Widmark and Lloyd Nolan…
sunrise
Sunrise (1927) directed by F.W. Murnau starring Janet Gaynor and George O’Brien-Beautifully filmed silent masterpiece
t-nightbirds
Nightbirds 1970 Andy Milligan’s gritty cult journey about two miscreants in London.
Terror From the Crypt
Terror in the Crypt aka Crypt of the Vampire 1964 directed by Camillo Mastrocinque based on the Karnstein saga with Adriana Ambesi and Ursula Davis and the immortal Christopher Lee
The Fiend Who Walked the West
The Fiend Who Walked the West (1958) directed by Gordon Douglas and starring Hugh O’Brian and a really psychotic Robert Evans.
The Scavengers 1959
The Scavengers 1959 starring Carol Ohmart directed by John Cromwell -an obscure film noir also starring Vince Edwards
The Secret Garden Margaret O'Brien
The Secret Garden 1949 starring Margaret O’Brien and a wonderful cast Herbert Marshall, Dean Stockwell, Gladys Cooper, Elsa Lanchester, Reginald Owen, Brian Roper, Aubrey Mather isobel Elsom and George Zucco fill out this fantasy drama directed by Fred M. Wilcox
the seventh sin
The Seventh Sin (1957) directed by Ronald Neame and Vincente Minnelli starring Eleanor Parker and Françoise Rosay Françoise Rosay as Mother Superior
The Soft Skin 1964 Francoise Dorleac
The Soft Skin 1964 Françoise Dorléac directed by François Truffaut
The Stranger 1946
The Stranger 1946 directed by Orson Welles
the terrible_people_1
The Terrible People (1960) directed by Harald Reinl adapted from the story by Edgar Wallace stars Joachim Fuchsberger
The Wild Boys of the Road thirty three
The Wild Boys of the Road 1933 directed by William Wellman
The Young One 1960
The Young One 1960 directed by Luis Buñuel starring Key Meersman as Evalyn. Also stars Zachary Scott and Bernie Hamilton
The-Exterminating-Angel
The Exterminating Angel (1962) directed by Luis Buñuel
The-Twilight-Girls
The Twilight Girls (1957) by André Hunebelle
To Kill a Mockingbird Jim and Dill
To Kill a Mockingbird 1962 directed by Robert Mulligan -John Megna as Dill and Phillip Alford as Jem. adapted from Harper Lee’s masterpiece

See you soon… Your EverLovin’ MonsterGirl!

Postcards from Shadowland No.11

Beast from 20,000 Fathoms
Beast from 20,000 Fathoms 1953
Bela in Chandu the Magician
Bela Lugosi and Irene Ware in Chandu the Magician 1932
Black Caesar
Fred Williamson in Black Caesar 1973
Cat People 1942 Alice at the pool
Cat People 1942 Alice at the pool
Chaney Sr., Lon (He Who Gets Slapped)_
Lon Chaney -He Who Gets Slapped 1924
claudette-colbert-cleopatra-1
Claudette Colbert and Henry Wilcoxon in Cleopatra 1934
Try and Get Me
The Sound of Fury aka Try and Get Me 1950
CrimeWave
Crime Wave 1954
Dante's Inferno
Dante’s Inferno (1911)
FallenAngel
Fallen Angel (1945) Dana Andrews, Alice Faye and Linda Darnell
Gun Crazy
Gun Crazy (1950) Peggy Cummins and John Dall
InALonelyPlace
In a Lonely Place (1950) Gloria Grahame
kitten with a whip
Ann -Margret in Kitten With a Whip 1964
Laura
Gene Tierney and Dana Andrews Laura (1944)
Innocents 1961
The Innocents 1961 with Deborah Kerr
MalteseFalcon jpg
Mary Astor The Maltese Falcon (1941)
misterbuddwing1965
James Garner and Angela Lansbury -Mister Buddwing (1966)
out of-the-past
Out of the Past (1947) Robert Mitchum and Virginia Huston
plunder road
Plunder Road (1957) Elisha Cook Jr.
Seance on a Wet Afternoon
Kim Stanley and Richard Attenborough Seance on a Wet Afternoon 1964
svengali Barrymore and Marsh
Svengali (1931) John Barrymore and Marian Marsh
The blue dahlia alan ladd and veronica lake
The Blue Dahlia (1946) Alan Ladd and Veronica Lake
z-Aelita
Aelita: Queen of Mars (1924)