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.” →

Behind the Velvet Curtain: Unveiling 8 Hidden Gems of 1940s Suspense Cinema

There’s a peculiar melancholy that lingers in the shadows of 1940s suspense cinema—a decade when the world seemed poised on a knife’s edge. The silver screen became a mirror for our deepest anxieties and desires. These films do so much more than simply entertain: they wrap us in a velvet shroud of uncertainty, where every footstep echoes with suspicion. Every silhouette threatens to dissolve into menace. They’re films spun from the fevered minds of visionary directors like Alfred Hitchcock, Fritz Lang, Robert Siodmak, and Jacques Tourneur, whose names became synonymous with the undercurrent of unease and tension, psychological intrigue, and atmospheric storytelling.

When I think about what makes 1940s suspense so compelling, often entering into noir territory, I always end up circling back to Robert Siodmak and Jacques Tourneur. Both directors had such a distinctive touch, but their approaches to tension and atmosphere were uniquely their own.

Robert Siodmak left a significant mark on cinema, blending noir atmosphere with psychological depth. He was a master of shadow and suspense, and you can see his roots in German Expressionism all over his films. He used black-and-white cinematography and urban landscapes not just for style, but to create a mood where darkness and light almost become characters themselves.

His films are packed with high-contrast lighting, inventive camera angles, and a sense of claustrophobia. He sets a mood that wraps the narrative in an airless vise like walls closing steadily around the story, unsettling and persistent.

Siodmak’s Phantom Lady starring Thomas Gomez, Ella Raines, and Franchot Tone.

Siodmak loved intricate, sometimes non-linear narratives—think of how The Killers unfolds through flashbacks, or how Criss Cross twists around on itself with betrayals and doomed romance. His characters are rarely straightforward heroes or villains; instead, they’re flawed, morally ambiguous, and often trapped by fate. Some of his best work includes noir masterpieces like The Killers 1946 and Criss Cross 1949, and suspenseful classics like Phantom Lady 1944 and The Spiral Staircase 1946—with Dorothy McGuire’s Helen navigating the labyrinth of shadows and peril—stand as cornerstones in the canon of suspense cinema, helping to define the genre’s enduring legacy of psychological complexity, visual innovation, and atmospheric dread.

Jacques Tourneur, on the other hand, brought a supernatural and Gothic edge to the genre. He was all about atmosphere and suggestion. He had this gift for making you feel like something terrifying was lurking just out of sight, using shadows, mood, and sound to let your imagination fill in the blanks. In his horror films—like Cat People 1942, I Walked with a Zombie 1943, and The Leopard Man 1943—he cultivates a cinematic spirit where the supernatural is always ambiguous, hovering just beyond the grasp of certainty.

James Bell and Jean Brooks in The Leopard Man 1943.

The sense of “the uncanny” is central: his films obscure any concrete visual cue, leaving us suspended between rational explanation and the possibility of something otherworldly. He rarely showed the threat outright, which somehow made things even more frightening.

Even when he shifted to noir with Out of the Past 1947, he brought that same sense of ambiguity and unease, blending hard-boiled crime with an almost ghostly mood. Tourneur’s camera work was elegant and fluid, and he had a real knack for subtle storytelling, leaving things unsaid, allowing us to draw our own conclusions. His best films (Out of the Past, Cat People, I Walked with a Zombie, Night of the Demon) are masterpieces of mood and restraint, proving that sometimes what you don’t see is even more powerful than what you do.

Both directors left a huge mark on suspense and noir, but in very different ways: Siodmak through his brooding, fatalistic cityscapes and tangled plots, and Tourneur through his poetic minimalism and haunting, ambiguous worlds.

Alfred Hitchcock stood at the high point of this thrilling movement— his American debut with Rebecca (1940), followed by Foreign Correspondent (1940), Suspicion (1941), Saboteur (1942), Spellbound (1945), and Notorious (1946). And one of Hitchcock’s most suspenseful works of the 1940s, Shadow of a Doubt (1943), with its chilling portrait of small-town innocence corrupted by Joseph Cotten’s unforgettable Merry Widow killer, Uncle Charlie. Hitchcock’s sensibility helped define the modern suspense film, blending ordinary protagonists, in seemingly ordinary situations, who find themselves mixed up with extraordinary danger.

Teresa Wright in Alfred Hitchcock’s suspense masterpiece Shadow of a Doubt 1943.

These directors dominated the suspense scene with pioneering cinematic techniques that heightened audience anxiety. I always marvel at how Hitchcock could make even the most mundane moments feel loaded with dread—he really knew how to keep us all on edge.

Honestly, I find myself endlessly drawn back to the suspense films of the 1940s—they just have this magnetic pull. Every time I revisit one, there’s that familiar jolt of excitement, like stepping into a world where danger is always just out of sight. The atmosphere is impossible to shake: shadows that seem to conspire, and a sense that every corner hides someone with sinister intentions. There’s something so compelling about watching depraved or nefarious characters weave their schemes while unsuspecting victims edge ever closer to peril. It’s that constant dance between predator and prey, menace and vulnerability, that keeps me hooked and makes these films feel so alive and unnerving. Suspense is painted with a palette of chiaroscuro, their stories flickering between light and shadow, hope and doom.

Fritz Lang was another towering figure. He brought his German Expressionist sensibilities to Hollywood and delivered classics like Man Hunt (1941), Ministry of Fear (1944), Secret Beyond the Door (1947), The Woman in the Window (1944), and Scarlet Street (1945). Lang’s films were marked by shadowy visuals, moral ambiguity, and a deep sense of fatalism.

Laird Cregar in Brahm’s The Lodger 1944.

John Brahm (Hangover Square, 1945; The Lodger, 1944) also contributed iconic suspense films that remain influential. Carol Reed’s Night Train to Munich (1940) and later The Third Man (1949) showcased British suspense at its finest, blending espionage with psychological tension. Alongside these luminaries, the decade was rich with directors who worked more quietly or off the beaten path, crafting understated or cult-favorite suspense thrillers. Mark Robson delivered the eerie The Seventh Victim (1943), a film that has grown in reputation for its ambiguous, atmospheric horror.

Carol Reed’s The Third Man starring Orson Welles as Harry Lime.

André De Toth’s Dark Waters (1944) offered a Southern Gothic take on suspense, while Stuart Heisler’s Among the Living (1941) explored madness and mistaken identity in a moody, underseen gem. Delmer Daves’ two superb 1947 gems – Dark Passage (1947), starring Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall is a suspenseful thriller about a man falsely convicted of his wife’s murder who escapes from prison and goes on the run to prove his innocence, aided by a mysterious woman, and The Red House a psychological mystery starring Edward G. Robinson and Judith Anderson, that centers on a secluded farmhouse, a mysterious red house in the woods, and dark family secrets that gradually come to light.

Joseph H. Lewis’s My Name Is Julia Ross (1945) is another compact, chilling entry, now celebrated for its taut direction and psychological depth. British directors also contributed to the genre’s richness. Norman Lee’s The Door with Seven Locks (1940) is a prime example of the “old dark house” thriller, and Thorold Dickinson’s Gaslight (1940) (the original British version) remains a masterclass in psychological manipulation and dread. There’s also George Cukor’s 1944 version of Gaslight starring Charles Boyer and Ingrid Bergman. Boris Ingster’s Stranger on the Third Floor (1940), though initially overlooked, is now recognized as a foundational film in both suspense and noir, with its surreal visuals and Kafkaesque atmosphere. Mexican director Roberto Gavaldón contributed with films such as La otra (The Other One 1946), a suspenseful tale of twins, murder, and identity. Starring Dolores del Río, La otra was later remade by Warner Bros. as Dead Ringer (1964) starring Bette Davis.

“A life that should have been but never was! A fate that moved on twisting and tortuous paths!”
– Dolores del Río, La Otra (The Other One)

Charles Boyer and Ingrid-Bergman in George Cukor’s Gaslight 1940.

Italian director Mario Soldati’s Malombra (1942) is a Gothic thriller with psychological suspense, featuring a haunted castle and a woman tormented by the past. Spanish director Edgar Neville stands out as the filmmaker most closely associated with suspense and crime thrillers in 1940s Spain. His film The Tower of the Seven Hunchbacks (La torre de los siete jorobados 1944) is a prime example—a fantastical mystery that plunges beneath the streets of old Madrid into a hidden world of intrigue, secret societies, and atmospheric menace.

The era’s thrillers-whether set in fog-choked London alleys, rain-soaked American mansions, or the labyrinthine byways of the mind-wove together noir’s bruised romanticism with the Gothic’s haunted longing all left their mark.

To revisit these films is to wander through that gallery of haunted rooms and rain-slicked streets, to step into a hall of mirrors, where every reflection is tinged with longing and every corridor leads deeper into uncertainty. Guided by directors who understood that suspense isn’t just about who did it or how—it’s about why we’re so drawn to the darkness at the edge of the frame. The legacy of 1940s suspense lies not just in its twists and revelations, but in the way these stories taught us to savor tension, to live inside the question, and to find beauty—even solace—suspensce is not just in the twists and revelations but in the way these stories taught us to savor the tension. It’s the melancholy art of not knowing what comes next.

The suspense thrillers of the 1940s were far more than products of their time—they were blueprints for the future, boldly blurring the lines between crime, horror, melodrama, and psychological drama. This willingness to experiment with genre boundaries opened the door to hybrid storytelling and tonal complexity. What makes these films so enduring isn’t just their style, but the way they tapped into the anxieties and shifting social landscape of their era, layering narrative daring with emotional depth and visual invention.

At their heart, these films revolve around recurring themes that resonate as strongly now as they did then. The “innocent-on-the-run” motif—ordinary people ensnared in webs of danger, mistaken identity, or conspiracy—heightened suspense by placing vulnerable protagonists in unfamiliar, often threatening situations, as seen in Hitchcock’s Foreign Correspondent (1940).

There are recurring tropes of Psychological Manipulation and Gaslighting: Films like Gaslight (1944) explored the theme of psychological abuse and manipulation, often within domestic or romantic relationships. Films that include Hitchcock’s Suspicion 1941, Joseph L. Mankiewicz’s Dragonwyck 1946, and Douglas Sirk’s Sleep, My Love 1948. These stories delved into the erosion of sanity, the questioning of reality, and the power dynamics between abuser and victim, reflecting broader anxieties and inherent fear about trust and control.

Some stories dealt with Doomed Romance, Paranoia, Conspiracy, and Betrayal—the pursuit of the object of desire and the fatal consequences of passion or unrequited love became a staple theme. Shaped by the looming shadow of war, these stories have a sense of dread and moral ambiguity. At the same time, claustrophobic settings and the motif of “the trap” amplified the tension, both literal and psychological. The shadow of World War II and the emerging Cold War infused thrillers with a sense of paranoia and distrust.

Henri-Georges Clouzot’s Le Corbeau 1943.

Films like Rebecca 1940, Henri-Georges Clouzot’s Le Corbeau 1943, The Mask of Dimitrios 1944 directed by Jean Negulesco, Hitchcock’s Notorious 1946, and The Stranger (1946), directed by and starring Orson Welles, The Two Mrs. Carrolls 1947 directed by Peter Godfrey. Reed’s The Third Man 1949, like many plots, often revolved around espionage, hidden enemies, and conspiracies, blurring the line between friend and foe and tapping into the era’s fear of infiltration and betrayal.

Moral Ambiguity and the Blurring of Good and Evil: Claustrophobia and the Trap: Many suspense films used confined or oppressive settings- locked rooms, shadowy mansions, fog-bound cities- to create a sense of entrapment. The “structure of the trap” was a key motif, with suspense built around the hero or heroine’s efforts to escape both literal and psychological confinement—Delmer Daves’s The Red House 1947. We also see Psychological Struggle and Internal Conflict: The best thrillers of the era didn’t just pit their characters against external threats, but also explored their inner turmoil. Themes of mental instability, trauma, and existential dread ran through films like Spellbound (1945) and The Spiral Staircase (1946), and Sorry, Wrong Number 1948, directed by Anatole Litvak and starring Barbara Stanwyck, where the real enemy was often within.

Barbara Stanwyck in Anatole Litvak’s Sorry, Wrong Number 1948.

Quite often, there was Patriarchal Control and Vulnerable Women: Many thrillers, especially those with noir or Gothic elements, explored the vulnerability of women in a patriarchal system, highlighting themes of emotional control, manipulation, and the struggle for autonomy, as seen in Gaslight and similar films. Women in Hiding 1940, directed by Richard Thorpe, and Uncle Silas 1947 (released in the U.S. as The Inheritance) starring Jean Simmons. Experiment Perilous 1944 directed by Jacques Tourneur. Starring Hedy Lamarr, it is a Gothic suspense film in which Hedy Lamarr’s character is trapped in a mansion with a controlling, possibly murderous husband. The story revolves around a woman’s struggle to survive and assert her autonomy amid a suffocating, patriarchal household. There was Undercurrent 1946, directed by Vincente Minnelli, starring Katharine Hepburn as a new bride who becomes increasingly fearful of her husband’s dark secrets and controlling behavior. The film explores the dangers of male authority and the erasure of female agency within marriage.

Crime, Murder, and the “Whodunit” Puzzle: Many suspense thrillers center on the mystery of a crime, often murder, and the gradual unraveling of clues, red herrings, and secrets. The “whodunit” structure provided a framework for suspense and brought us into the obstacle course and the tension of the mystery.

Olivia de Havilland in a dual role in Robert Siodmak’s The Dark Mirror 1946.

And, of course, we can forget: Psychological and Psycho-Sexual Disturbance. Beneath the shadowy intrigue of 1940s suspense thrillers pulses a current of psychological and psycho-sexual disturbance, where repressed desires, fractured identities, and taboo obsessions drive characters to the brink of madness and violence. This captures both the psychological and the psycho-sexual elements- think of films like The Strange Love of Martha Ivers (1946), directed by Lewis Milestone, Fritz Lang’s Secret Beyond the Door 1947, Phantom Lady 1944, Spellbound 1945, The Dark Mirror 1946, and that same year, Hedy Lamarr would become the dark antiheroine in Edge G. Ulmer’s taut, The Strange Woman. Ulmer brought a distinctive, atmospheric touch to this tale of power, desire, and moral ambiguity. Also in 1946, there was John Brahm’s The Locket, where inner turmoil and forbidden impulses are as suspenseful as any external threat.

Noirvember – Freudian Femme Fatales – 1946 : The Dark Mirror (1946) & The Locket (1946) ‘Twisted Inside’

One of the most unforgettable images comes from Alfred Hitchcock’s Saboteur (1942), where the climactic confrontation atop the Statue of Liberty’s torch delivers a harrowing blend of vertigo and dread. As the real saboteur Norman Lloyd as the villain Frank Fry, clings desperately to the statue’s hand, we’re left breathless, suspended between sky and sea, in a sequence that remains a blueprint for tension in visual suspense.

Norman Lloyd as the villain Frank Fry in Hitchcock’s Saboteur 1942.

One of the most haunting moments in 1940s suspense comes courtesy of Dorothy McGuire as Helen in Robert Siodmak’s The Spiral Staircase 1946. There’s a particular sequence that has stayed with me: Helen, mute and utterly alone in the storm-battered mansion, senses the killer closing in. McGuire’s expressive eyes and trembling hands do all the speaking—her fear is so palpable it practically seeps off the screen. As Helen ascends the shadow-soaked spiral staircase, every twist of the banister seems to tighten the grip of dread, the candlelight flickering across her face as if the house itself is conspiring to keep her silent. The camera coils around her, mirroring her mounting panic, while thunder rattles the windows and the killer’s presence presses in from every dark corner. It’s a stroke of genius in Silent Terror: McGuire’s Helen, trapped between floors and fate, becomes the embodiment of vulnerability and resilience, and in that moment, you can’t help but hold your breath right along with her.

For this collection of suspense that lurks off the beaten path, I’m hoping you’ll join me in descending these winding staircases and wander through this particular hall of mirrors, as we honor the spellbinding legacy of 1940s suspense- a genre that, like a half-remembered dream, refuses to fade with the dawn.

Continue reading “Behind the Velvet Curtain: Unveiling 8 Hidden Gems of 1940s Suspense Cinema” →

MonsterGirl’s 150 Days of Classic Horror #117 Psychomania 1973

Psychomania 1973

Few films capture the offbeat spirit of early 1970s British horror quite like Psychomania, a supernatural biker movie that straddles the line between cult camp, Gothic fairytale, and psychedelic phantasmagoria. Directed by Don Sharp and shot by Ted Moore. Don Sharp was a Tasmanian-born filmmaker whose career spanned four decades and a remarkable range of genres. After starting as an actor in Australia and England, he transitioned to writing and directing in the 1950s, working on everything from children’s films and documentaries to musicals and comedies. Sharp became best known for his stylish and energetic contributions to British horror, particularly his work with Hammer Films, where he directed cult classics like Kiss of the Vampire (1963) and Rasputin, the Mad Monk (1966). He also directed the popular Fu Manchu films with Christopher Lee and brought his brisk, inventive style to thrillers, action adventures, and quirky cult favorites like Psychomania (1973).

Ted Moore was a renowned cinematographer best known for his work on seven James Bond films during the 1960s and early 1970s, including Dr. No (1962), From Russia with Love (1963), Goldfinger (1964), Thunderball (1965), Diamonds Are Forever (1971), Live and Let Die (1973), and portions of The Man with the Golden Gun (1974). He won an Academy Award and a BAFTA for his cinematography on A Man for All Seasons (1966). Moore’s career is proof that cinematic artistry, you can don everything from biker leathers and helmets to velvet doublets behind the lens. One moment, he’s conjuring undead hooligans tearing up the English countryside in this gloriously offbeat horror flick; the next, he’s bathing Tudor England in the stately glow of A Man for All Seasons.

Moore’s other notable films include: The Day of the Triffids (1962), The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie (1969), The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973), Orca (1977), Clash of the Titans (1981), and Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger (1977). He was also a camera operator on classics like The African Queen (1951). Moore’s career spanned four decades, and his visual style helped define the look of British adventure, fantasy, and action cinema in the mid-20th century.

Psychomania, aka later as The Death Wheelers, is a film that feels both utterly of its time and strangely timeless—a wild collision of post-hippie mysticism, suburban malaise, and the anarchic energy of youth culture gone gleefully to seed. At its core, Psychomania is the story of Tom Latham (Nicky Henson), the charismatic but unhinged leader of a biker gang called The Living Dead. Tom’s home life is as peculiar as his gang’s name suggests: he lives in a stately English manor with his enigmatic mother (Beryl Reid), who conducts séances with her sinister butler Shadwell (George Sanders, in his final film). The recurring imagery of frogs, amulets, visions, and ultimately Mrs. Latham’s transformation is all tied directly to an esoteric deity. The family’s occult leanings are more than a hobby—Tom’s mother worships a Frog God, part of an occult mythology, which is not merely a symbolic figure or her ‘familiar’ spirit, but an actual deity with the power to grant immortality and exact supernatural punishment. This God possesses the secret to immortality, a secret Tom is determined to unlock.

On his 18th birthday, Tom enters a forbidden room, has a vision of the Frog God, and promptly commits suicide (in order to attain eternal power)—only to return from the grave, now invincible and possessed of superhuman strength. His resurrection sets off a bizarre chain reaction: one by one, his biker friends follow suit, gleefully committing suicide with the hope of returning as undead hellraisers. Only Tom’s girlfriend, Abby (Mary Larkin), refuses to join the death cult, providing a rare note of conscience in a film otherwise gleeful in its disregard for life and law.

The undead bikers, now immune to harm, unleash a surreal crime wave on the English countryside, their rampage punctuated by scenes of gallows humor and deadpan absurdity. The police, led by Chief Inspector Hesseltine (Robert Hardy), are baffled, and the town is soon gripped by panic. Ultimately, it is Tom’s mother who is disgusted by the chaos her son has unleashed. In the film’s climax, after Mrs. Latham breaks her occult pact to stop her undead son and his biker gang, she ends the pact with the Frog God, turning her son and his gang to stone at the film’s climax, while she herself is transformed into a frog as a supernatural consequence. This bizarre and memorable moment is a literal transformation, not just a metaphor or hallucination.

Don Sharp’s direction is both playful and atmospheric, never shying away from the film’s inherent absurdity but also imbuing it with moments of genuine eeriness. The film opens with masked bikers weaving through a foggy stone circle—a sequence that feels like a pagan ritual filtered through the lens of a biker movie.

Ted Moore’s cinematography is key to the film’s unique mood, blending dreamy, soft-focus shots of the English countryside with the kinetic chaos of motorcycle chases and supernatural visions. The recurring imagery of standing stones, frogs, and misty landscapes creates a sense of ancient, lurking menace beneath the veneer of modern suburbia. The tone is an ever-shifting blend of camp, satire, and the uncanny.

Psychomania is never truly scary, but its off-kilter energy and willingness to embrace the ridiculous give it a hypnotic charm. The film’s soundtrack, composed by John Cameron (The Ruling Class 1972, Night Watch 1973 with Elizabeth Taylor), is a groovy, prog-inflected mix of rock and eerie atmospherics.

Cameron fuses propulsive rock rhythms with eerie, experimental textures, giving the film its unmistakably surreal and otherworldly mood. The soundtrack leans on wah-wah guitars, upright bass run through pedals, wordless vocals by jazz singer Norma Winstone, and unconventional techniques like scratching the inside of pianos and using phase pedals—all conjured in a pre-synthesizer era, a sound that’s both driving and unsettling, perfectly straddling the line between British folk horror and American biker movie energy.

The score to Psychomania ripples through the film like a spectral echo, weaving psychedelic riffs and eerie organ flourishes into sonic washes that feel both not of this realm and unmistakably of its time. Cameron’s score possesses the ghostly pulse of ancient stone circles colliding with the wandering spirit of early ’70s counterculture—a groove-laden, hallucinatory soundtrack that turns every motorcycle race and ritual into a feverish, cinematic séance.
It’s as if the restless spirits of the swinging ’60s, the groovy ’70s, and the occult shadows of ancient Britain collided on vinyl, spinning out a soundtrack that shimmers with the mischievous pulse of a midnight ride—music that turns every motorcycle rev into a spell and every chase into a trancelike, funky, psychy trip along a windy road.

Nicky Henson, the film’s leading hunk, is all swagger and reckless abandon as Tom, making his nihilistic antihero both magnetic and unhinged. Beryl Reid brings a sly, knowing wit to Mrs. Latham, while George Sanders, as Shadwell, lends the proceedings a sense of faded aristocratic menace—a fitting swan song for the legendary actor. Mary Larkin’s Abby is a rare voice of vulnerability and conscience, providing an emotional anchor amid the film’s gleeful nihilism. The supporting cast is a who’s-who of British character actors, from Robert Hardy’s befuddled police inspector to Ann Michelle’s aggressive biker Jane Pettibone (I love the name! you can see her British television and in cult horror films like Virgin Witch 1972, House of Whipcord 1974, Haunted 1977 and Young Lady Chatterley 1977). Their performances, sometimes deadpan, sometimes arch, contribute to the film’s unique tonal blend—a mix of straight-faced horror and sly self-parody.

Beryl Reid was one of those rare British actresses who could steal a scene with just a raised eyebrow or a perfectly timed quip. She bounced from radio comedy in Educating Archie to triumphs like The Killing of Sister George, originally a stage play written by Frank Marcus in 1964, with Beryl Reid originating the role of June “George” Buckridge on stage and later reprising it in the 1968 film adaptation directed by Robert Aldrich. Reid won a Tony Award for her performance in the Broadway production of the play.

Then sauntered onto film sets for everything from The Belles of St. Trinian’s 1954, Dr. Phibes Rises Again! 1972, and this gloriously oddball – Psychomania, to another hidden horror gem, The Beast in the Cellar 1970, alongside Flora Robson. Reid even made her mark in the Doctor Who universe and delivered a moving, BAFTA-winning portrayal of Connie Sachs in Smiley’s People. She had a knack for making eccentricity look effortless—whether she was playing a dotty medium, a spy’s confidante, or just the sharpest wit in the room. No formal training, just pure, unfiltered Beryl: a national treasure who made British screens a lot more interesting and a lot less predictable.

Psychomania is, in many ways, a quintessential cult film: overlooked on release, it found new life through late-night TV airings – which is how I stumbled across this unique offering of undead biker mayhem, sent by the midnight movie gods, headlights blazing and a menacing wheelie. I recommend the film for fans of British horror’s more eccentric corners. Its blend of biker rebellion, occult weirdness, and deadpan British humor is utterly singular, as English as cucumber sandwiches, or beans on toast, a spot of tea, on a rainy, ashen grey day.

If you were to watch it today, the film would strike you as a fascinating artifact of its era, capturing the anxieties and fascinations of early 1970s Britain: the rise of youth subcultures, a renewed interest in the occult, and the sense that the old order was crumbling, to be replaced by something far stranger. Psychomania stands not just as a quirky horror oddity, but as a psychedelic snapshot of a society in transition—a film where the living and the dead, the sacred and the absurd, all share the same haunted, stony road.

#117 down, 33 to go! Your EverLovin’ Joey formally & affectionately known as MonsterGirl!

MonsterGirl’s 150 Days of Classic Horror #94 THE LODGER: A STORY OF THE LONDON FOG 1927/ THE LODGER 1944 & HANGOVER SQUARE 1945

Echoes in the Fog: The Lodger Legend and Its Shadows from Hitchcock to Hangover Square

THE LODGER: A STORY OF THE LONDON FOG 1927

Alfred Hitchcock’s The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog (1927) stands as a watershed moment in both his career and the evolution of the suspense thriller. Though it was his third feature, Hitchcock himself would later call it his “first true film,” and it’s easy to see why: here, the director’s signature obsessions—wrongly accused men, dangerous allure, and the shadow of violence—emerge fully formed, set against a fog-choked London that feels both timeless and distinctly modern.

Drawing from Marie Belloc Lowndes’s 1913 novel and its stage adaptation, the film takes its inspiration from the Jack the Ripper murders, but is less interested in true crime in reality it is more about the feverish paranoia that settles over a city when evil seems to be lurking just out of sight, prowling the streets.

The story itself is deceptively simple: a serial killer known as “The Avenger” is targeting blonde women, sending London into a state of panic. Right in the middle of all this, the mysterious lodger—played by Ivor Novello—shows up and rents a room from the Buntings just as the murders edge closer to home.

Novello is both magnetic and ambiguous; his haunted eyes and secretive ways make him suspicious and yet strangely fascinating, especially to the Buntings’ daughter Daisy (June Tripp).

As Daisy’s policeman boyfriend Joe (Malcolm Keen) gets more jealous and the Buntings’ suspicions grow, the film really tightens the noose of doubt around their lodger, leading to a dramatic sequence of accusation, pursuit, and mob justice before the truth finally comes to light.

Hitchcock’s direction, deeply influenced by the German Expressionist cinema he encountered in Berlin, is on full display. Working with cinematographer Gaetano di Ventimiglia, he floods the film with mist, shadow, and oblique camera angles, creating a visual world where fear and uncertainty seep into every frame.

The film’s look is both expressionist and modern: glass floors allow us to see the lodger’s anxious pacing from below, staircases become vertiginous chasms, and the fog itself seems to swallow up the city. The rhythm of the editing—dynamic, almost musical—heightens the sense of unease, while the absence of spoken dialogue only sharpens Hitchcock’s focus on pure visual storytelling.

The cast brings a strange, almost theatrical intensity to the film. Marie Ault and Arthur Chesney are quietly compelling as the Buntings, their growing fear for Daisy palpable in every gesture. June Tripp’s Daisy is luminous and vulnerable, while Malcolm Keen’s Joe simmers with suspicion. But it’s Novello who dominates, his performance walking a tightrope between innocence and menace. Hitchcock’s own cameo—his first—comes early, a sly touch that would become a trademark. Historically, The Lodger arrived at a moment when British cinema was searching for its own voice, and Hitchcock’s film was immediately recognized as a leap forward. Critics hailed its technical innovation and atmospheric power, and it quickly established Hitchcock as a director of rare vision.

The film’s themes—media-fueled hysteria, the dangers of mob justice, the ambiguity of guilt—feel as relevant today as they did nearly a century ago. What lingers most, though, is the film’s atmosphere: a city shrouded in fog, where every footstep echoes with dread, and where the line between hunter and hunted is never quite clear. The Lodger is not just a story of murder, but of suspicion, desire, and the perilous search for truth in the haunting, murky shadows.

THE LODGER 1944

John Brahm’s 1944 adaptation of The Lodger stands out as one of the most atmospheric and psychologically charged takes on the Jack the Ripper legend, setting the tone for the era’s horror cinema. Drawing once again from Lowndes’s 1913 novel, the film drops us right into a foggy, gaslit London where fear and suspicion seem to hang heavy in the air.

At the center are the Bontings, a respectable couple who are struggling to make ends meet. So they decide to rent a room to the enigmatic Mr. Slade—played by Laird Cregar—a brooding man whose unsettling habits and haunted look, which bears the mark of something dark and dangerous, quickly disturb the household.

Slade, played with mesmerizing intensity by Laird Cregar, is a figure both pitiable and terrifying, his every movement weighted with obsession and barely contained madness.

As the city reels from a series of brutal murders targeting actresses, Slade becomes fixated on the Bontings’ niece Kitty Langley (Merle Oberon), a luminous music-hall performer.

Laird Cregar was a remarkably gifted American actor whose brief career left a lasting impression on classic Hollywood cinema. Known for his commanding presence and expressive performances, Cregar excelled in roles that demanded both menace and vulnerability, bringing a unique depth to villains and tortured souls alike. He rose to prominence with standout performances in films such as I Wake Up Screaming (1941), This Gun for Hire (1942), and,  notably, this role as the haunted Mr. Slade in The Lodger, followed by his performance as the tragic composer George Harvey Bone in Hangover Square (1945).

Cregar’s acting was marked by a rare ability to convey complex inner turmoil—his characters often seemed caught between longing and darkness, their emotional conflict visible in every gesture and expression.

Offscreen, Laird Cregar’s life was just as complicated. He was ambitious but also very aware of how his imposing size shaped the roles he was offered, struggling with Hollywood’s expectations of their leading men. This drove him to try a risky crash diet in hopes of landing more romantic parts. Sadly, this decision contributed to his early death at only 31. Privately, his sexuality was something only close friends and colleagues knew about, and his relationships—including a notable romance with actor David Bacon—were often the subject of both gossip and tragedy.

Despite his short life, Laird Cregar’s career was filled with highlights: he was celebrated for his villainous roles, brought unexpected sympathy to his darkest characters, and was praised by contemporaries for his stage work as well as his films. His performances in The Lodger and Hangover Square remain iconic, showcasing a talent that could evoke both fear and pity, and leaving a legacy as one of Hollywood’s most memorable and enigmatic actors.

As Mr. Slade, Cregar’s performance dominates the film, imbuing Slade with a tragic depth. His physical presence—imposing yet oddly vulnerable—makes him an unforgettable figure, whose yes are constantly shifting, moving between longing and menace, as if he’s always caught between wanting and warning at the same time.

The supporting cast brings their own vivid energy: Merle Oberon’s Kitty is both glamorous and sympathetic, while George Sanders, as the suave Inspector Warwick, brings a dry wit and dogged determination to the hunt for the killer. Wonderful character actors, Cedric Hardwicke and Sara Allgood, as the Bontings, ground the film with their blend of domestic warmth and deepening apprehension, their household slowly unraveling under the weight of suspicion.

What really stands out to me about The Lodger is how visually it leans into a moody, noir-inflected style. Lucien Ballard’s cinematography bathes everything in deep shadows and swirling fog, clearly inspired by German Expressionism. The result is a world that feels at once claustrophobic and strangely dreamlike.

Every frame seems alive with narrow alleyways, rain-slicked streets, and dark, shadowy interiors, conjuring a London that feels like it’s on the verge of hysteria.

The camera lingers on faces, hands, and fleeting, telling glances that say more than words, adding to the tension and uncertainty that drive the story forward.

And Hugo Friedhofer’s score? It quietly threads the film with a subtle but undeniable force that adds to the sense of doom, giving The Lodger its lingering, haunted melancholy that hangs over every scene.

Brahm tightly holds the reins—there’s this careful balance between those quiet, psychologically uneasy moments and sudden bursts of violence and panic. Compared to Hitchcock’s silent version, which focused more on suspicion and the threat of mob justice, this film seems to delve deeper into the psychology of its characters, especially Salde, whose twisted motivations are revealed in chilling detail. The story deviates from the novel and its earlier adaptations, but it manages to add a sense of unpredictability and dread. The Lodger isn’t so much a whodunit as it is about consuming shadows of fear and obsession.

The Lodger was released at a time when Hollywood was dealing with all the anxieties that come with war and the lingering shadows of the past. Brahm, a German émigré, brought a distinctly European sensibility to the film, blending that polished Hollywood studio gloss with the moody, intense vibe of 1930s Expressionism. The end result is a film that somehow feels both timeless and completely of its moment—a suspenseful, unsettling meditation on evil, desire, and the darkness that can hide behind even the most respectable facades.

In the end, The Lodger is less a straightforward thriller than a feverish portrait of a city—and a mind—unraveling. With its unforgettable performances, haunting visuals, and lingering sense of unease, it remains a high point of 1940s horror.

There is a memorable line in the 1944 film The Lodger that touches on the paradox of love and hate. Laird Cregar’s character, Mr. Slade, utters:

“To hate a thing and love it too, and to love it so much that you hate it.”

This line is delivered during one of Slade’s intense, confessional moments, revealing the tortured duality at the heart of his character. Slade is speaking to Kitty, who has become both his obsession and his undoing. The quote sums up the film’s central tension—Slade’s simultaneous attraction to and resentment of women, especially those who remind him of his tragic past. It’s a moment that not only deepens our understanding of Slade’s psychological torment but also highlights the film’s exploration of the thin, often blurred line between love and hate.

This duality drives the suspense and emotional complexity of The Lodger, leaving us unsettled by the realization that the two emotions can coexist so fiercely within a single soul and Cregar is masterful at bringing to life the aching duality of a soul at war with itself, embodying both longing and menace with a grace that makes his torment feel hauntingly real. His performance shimmers with the tension of a man forever caught between shadow and light, desire and dread, each emotion reflected in his face like a secret he can never quite escape.

HANGOVER SQUARE 1945

Cregar reignites his role as a tormented soul. Once again, John Brahm returns with Hangover Square (1945), a feverish, noir-soaked descent into madness, obsession, and the perilous intersection of art and violence. Set in Edwardian London, the film follows George Harvey Bone, a gifted composer played with haunting vulnerability and intensity by Laird Cregar. Bone’s life is a study in contrasts: outwardly gentle and unassuming, inwardly tormented by blackouts triggered by discordant sounds—episodes that leave him with no memory and, as we soon learns, a trail of violence in his wake.

The film opens with a jolt: Bone, in a fugue state, murders a shop owner and sets the scene ablaze, then stumbles home, bloodied and bewildered, unable to recall his actions. This pattern of lost time and chilling gloom becomes the film’s pulse as Bone seeks help from Dr. Allan Middleton (George Sanders), a renowned police surgeon and psychological consultant at Scotland Yard.

After committing the murder during one of his amnesiac episodes, George seeks help for his troubling blackouts. He confides in Barbara Chapman, played by Faye Marlowe, who is the supportive and caring daughter of Sir Henry Chapman, a well-known conductor and George Harvey Bone’s mentor, who takes him to see Dr. Middleton.

At the heart of Bone’s unraveling is his infatuation with Netta Longdon, a cunning and ambitious music hall singer brought to life by Linda Darnell. Netta’s beauty and charm mask a ruthless opportunism; she manipulates Bone’s affections, using his talent to advance her own career while stringing him along with false promises.

Cregar’s Bone is desperate, yearning, and increasingly unstable, while Darnell’s Netta is dazzling and cold, her self-interest sharpening every exchange. Faye Marlowe’s Barbara Chapman, the compassionate daughter of Bone’s mentor, offers a gentler counterpoint, her concern for Bone underscoring the tragedy of a man pulled between light and darkness.

Visually, Hangover Square is a vivid illustration of a noir/thriller atmosphere. Cinematographer Joseph LaShelle (Fallen Angel 1945, Road House 1948, Where the Sidewalk Ends 1950, Marty 1955, The Apartment 1960, How the West Was Won 1962) bathes the film in inky shadows and soft, gaslit haze, creating a world that feels both lush and claustrophobic. Brahm’s direction is dynamic and inventive—overhead shots, Dutch angles, and low perspectives lend a sense of instability and tension, mirroring Bone’s fractured psyche. The film’s most striking set pieces—particularly the Guy Fawkes bonfire scene, with masked revelers encircling a towering blaze—are both grandly theatrical and chillingly intimate, the camera swooping and gliding as Bone’s fate closes in around him.

Bernard Herrmann’s score is also integral to the film’s impact, his original piano concerto serving as both a narrative centerpiece and a psychological battleground. The music swells and recedes with Bone’s moods, the climactic concert sequence a brilliant flourish of sound and image: as flames consume the concert hall, Bone plays on, lost in his own creation, the boundaries between art, madness, and destruction dissolving in the inferno.

Hangover Square is rooted in the mood of its time. It starts with Patrick Hamilton’s 1941 novel, but is transformed into a kind of Gothic melodrama that’s full of the era’s anxieties. The Edwardian setting comes alive with all the rich period details—those sumptuous costumes, busy pubs, and clouds of smoke swirling through every scene. But what really sets the film apart is its noir edge, that constant sense of dread and inevitability running underneath it all that defines its style. Cregar’s performance, tragically his last truly, becomes the beating heart of the film. He embodies the duality of a man gifted and doomed. His torment is visible in every gesture, every look, and every move he makes.

In the end, Hangover Square is a story of a soul at war with itself, of love curdled into obsession, and of genius consumed by its own fire.

#94 Down, 56 to go! Your EverLovin Joey formally & affectionately known as MosnterGirl!

 

31 Flavors of Noir on the Fringe to Lure You In! Part 1

Read: Parts Two, Three & Four

“A man could spend the rest of his life trying to remember what he shouldn’t have said.”- Force of Evil

“All that Cain did to Abel was murder him.” –Force of Evil

“He pushed me too far!… So I pushed him just far enough.” –The Lineup

“You’re like a rat in a box without any holes” – I Wake Up Screaming

“From now on, no one cuts me so deep that I can’t close the wound.” – I Wake Up Screaming

“I’m gonna give you a break. I’m gonna fix it so you don’t hear the bullets!”- The Big Combo

“I was born on a Monday, I might as well go out on a Monday. Like dirty laundry.”- Man in the Dark

Heads up… this feature includes spoilers…💣

1-I Wake Up Screaming 1941

I Wake Up Screaming is the first official noir produced by Fox, directed by H. Bruce Humberstone (he worked on Charlie Chan programmers and B-movies) who was not considered a noir director. With a screenplay by Dwight Taylor based on the novel by Steve Fisher. Eddie Muller said it personified film noir and calls the 1941 film – Proto-noir, as it was the first of its kind.

Darryl F. Zanuck wanted the film’s location changed to New York City, so it wouldn’t reflect badly on L.A. There are a number of sleazy characters involved and he wanted to shift the story from Hollywood to Broadway.

The film was remade as Vicki in 1953 (with Jeanne Crane and Jean Peters, though it lacked the highly stylized artistry) Photographed by Edward Cronjager (Seven Keys to Baldpate 1929, Hell’s Highway 1932, The Monkey’s Paw 1933, Island in the Sky 1938, The Gorilla 1939, Heaven Can Wait 1943, Desert Fury 1947, Relentless 1948, House by the River 1950, The Girl in Lovers Lane 1960) pours out murky noir shadows, darkened streets, unusual camera angles, low key lighting and the high contrast, one-point lighting that illuminates the ink black threatening spaces. The film is stark yet dynamic.

With music by Cyril J. Mockridge, you'll hear the familiar often-used noir leitmotif, the melody Street Scene by Alfred Newman. I Wake Up Screaming stars Betty Grable as Jill Lynn, Victor Mature as Frankie Christopher, Carole Landis as Vicki Lynn, and Laird Cregar as Ed Cornell. The film also co-stars Alan Mowbray as Robin Ray and Allyn Joslyn as Larry Evans. Quirky character actor Elisha Cook Jr. plays Harry Williams the desk clerk in Vicki’s apartment building who’s a real weirdo. William Gargan plays Detective Jerry ‘Mac’ MacDonald.

Cook is great at playing quirky oddballs (Cliff the crazed drummer in Phantom Lady 1944, George Peatty in The Killing 1956, anxious trench coat-wearing Wilmer in The Maltese Falcon 1941, Watson Pritchard in House on Haunted Hill 1959).

I Wake up Screaming bares a resemblance to a whodunit, as the killer is chased down with the story playing a bit of a shell game with us. There are common noir themes of obsession, perverse lust, corruption, and homicidal jealousy. The film also has a preoccupation with images and artifice, tossing up flashbacks like a circus juggler.

Right before model, Vicki Lynn heads to Hollywood to reach for her rising star, she is brutally murdered. Delicious Betty Grable in her first non-music role, plays Jill Lynn, Vicki’s sister, who is drawn to the man (Victor Mature) who is presumably her sister’s murderer.

Vicki functions as an essential part of the narrative early on in the film and is resurrected by way of flashbacks. Frankie knows that while there are images that still exist of Vicki she is no longer present. In fact, Vicki is a myth and a manufactured deception in some ways. Jill on the other hand is genuine, unpretentious, and warmhearted.

Carol Landis who died at 28 from an overdose, plays murder victim Vicki Lynn. I Wake up Screaming backflips into the weeks leading up to her death. The film is also somewhat of a noir variation on Pygmalion, as Victor Mature who plays Frankie Christopher, sports and show business promoter, discovers a beautiful girl waiting tables and gets the hot idea of turning Vicki into a celebrity and society girl. Vicki’s appeal is the sphere of influence that drives the plot. Mature always makes the screen sweat with his sexy brawny build, swarthy good looks, strong jaw line, and the aura of his glistening obsidian hair.

The film opens with a sensational news headline ‘MODEL MURDERED’ Right from the top Frankie is being grilled by the cops in the interrogation room. Burning white hot lights are up close in his face. He says to the shadow of Cornell (Cregar) who's a bulky shadow shot with single source lighting) to his opaque figure, "You're a pretty tough guy with a crowd around.”

The flashbacks begin. Frankie goes back to the first time he meets Vicki at the lunch room on 8th Avenue while eating with Larry Evans (Alan Joslyn) and Robin Ray (Alan Mowbray). Vicki asks "Is that all?" Lary Evans says "No, but the rest of it isn't on the menu." She handles his come on, "You couldn't afford it if it was.” Frankie pours on the charm. He gets the notion to take Vicki and mold her into a celebrity. “You know I bet in 6 months I could take that girl and put her on top of the ladder." Mature and Landis worked together in One Million Years B.C.

Has-been actor Robin Ray (Mowbray) and ruthless gossip columnist Larry Evans (Joslyn) decide to get involved in developing Vicki Lynn’s mystique and cultivate her glamour on the road to fame. Of course, both men wind up having a yen for her. A cynical Ray (Mowbray) complains that all women are alike. Evans (Joslyn) tells him, “For Pete’s sake, what difference does that make? You’ve got to have them. They’re standard equipment.”

Frankie takes Vicki Lynn out into New York cafe society – All three schemers, the columnist, the washed-up actor, and Frankie, bring her to the cafe and make a big noise, grabbing the attention of Lady Handel (May Beatty) who invites them over to her table. In order to give the impression that Vicki will now be a new sensation, Larry Evans brags in front of the table, that he'll plug her In his column. They also think that it’ll help Vicki to get noticed if she’s seen on Robin Ray’s arm. The outing is a success. When they bring her home to her apartment building they meet the squirrely desk clerk Harry Williams (Elisha Cook), who takes his sweet time, getting up for Vicki. Frankie gives him a hard time after being so disrespectful. Williams sneers, “She ain’t nobody.”

Back to the present and Frankie's still in the sweat box. They're questioning Jill too. She’s telling the cops about Vicki’s plans. She’s got, "Grand ideas about becoming a celebrity." They ask about Frankie’s involvement. Another flashback – the sisters are talking about Vicki’s new venture. Vicki tells Jill, "They're gonna glamorize me." Jill tells Vicki that she doesn't trust Frankie’s promises, and apologizes for sounding stuffy. She warns Vicki about having unrealistic aspirations. Flashback even further. Frankie shows up at the cafeteria. Vicki keeps dishing out the wisecracks. He shows her the newspaper article about her making a splash at the El Chico Club.

"Why all the cracks you don't even know me?" "I don't know anything about art, but I know what I like." Back in the present day, at the police station. Jill continues to tell the cops how successful Vicki's climb was. Backward once again-

Jill Lynn I don’t want to tell you your business, but don’t you think you’re making a fool of yourself?
Vicki Lynn What do you mean?
Jill Oh, this Frankie Christopher. People like that, what have they got to do with people like us?
Vicki Jill, they’re going to help me!
Jill In what way?
Vicki They’re gonna’ glamorize me. They may have started this thing as a gag, but, after taking one look at those million-dollar debutantes tonight, I realized I can give them cards in spades and still come out on top.
Jill Vicky, you’ll never come out on top by any shortcuts. One week your picture’s on the cover of a magazine, the next it’s in the ash can.

Frankie arrives at the girl’s apartment, and Vicki breaks the news to Frankie that she's going away to Hollywood. She'd done a screen test and signed a long-term contract. He's angry. She went behind Frankie's back after everything he did for her. She defends herself "Some people think I'm a pretty attractive girl. I'm no Frankenstein you know!" Frankie comments, "I wonder."

Jill tells the cops she was pounding a typewriter breaking her fingernails, and Vicki did get the Hollywood contract, so she might have been right about taking the risk with an acting career and becoming a star.

Another flashback The three men are sitting around the bar.

Robin Ray [indignant] Can you imagine her walking out on me, after all that I’ve done for her? Me!

Larry Evans [slightly incredulous] “You’ve” done for her? What have *you* done for her?

Robin Well, I took her out to all the bright spots, I let her be seen with me everywhere… It made her feel important.

Larry Why, you parboiled old ham! You don’t think anybody thought there was anything between *you* two, do you? If it hadn’t been for my plugging in the column, people would’ve thought she was your trained nurse.

Robin Why, you ink-stinking word slinger! I was famous when they were changing your pants 20 times a day!

Jumping to the present again, Jill is still being questioned by the cops. They want to know if Vicki had anyone in her life. Jill remembers a peculiar thing that happened. She tells them she was sitting at the table in the cafeteria waiting for Vicki to get off work. The peeping prowling, Ed Cornell's giant shape stares at Vicki through the window. He has a queer look on his face. Jill maintains her stare, holding her coffee cup, she is unable to put it down as she studies him, uncomfortably. Once he notices Jill catching him ogling Vicki, he skulks away. Mockeridge's score undergoes a sinister change, with emphasis on the rhythmic accents of a classic horror picture.

Jill tells her sister, "You seem to have an admirer there's some guy looking through the window like the wolf looking for the 3 little pigs." The girls are walking on the street, Cornell is leaning against a wall, and Jill points out to Vicki that he's the one. "He gives me the creeps," Vicki says, "You'll have to get used to that, they've got more wolves in New York than they have in Siberia," She tells the cops she saw him several times after in odd places. He never said anything but watched Vicki, it frightened Jill. There was something strange about him, the way he looked at Vicki. Always turning up in strange places. The cops look skeptical about her "mysterious stranger."

The cops think Jill is trying to protect Frankie "I just don't believe he did it, that's all" They ask if she's involved with him, and accuse her of being in love with him and wanting Vicki out of the way. Jill demands to see someone in authority, so they tell Mac to get Cornell. Who walks in? The creep who watched Vicki through the plate glass!

Enter rabid, self-righteous homicide Detective Ed Cornell (Cregar). Once he sets his sights on Frankie he begins to mercilessly hound him to the ends of hell if necessary, going after him with a flaming vengeance, trying to pin the murder on him. Cornell knows that Frankie is innocent but he is determined to persecute him. Cregar made an all too short career out playing imposing characters. He died at 28 in 1944 due to complications from a crash diet, always struggling with his weight, striving to obtain leading man status.

Jill is startled, the room is smoky and this massive shape looms over her with his girth "That's him, that's the man!" They think she's crazy. First, it's a mysterious stranger peeking through windows and now it's Ed Cornell. "That’s my job to look at people." Leaving the dark corner of the sweat box into the smoke factory with Frankie, things become more visible as Cornell emerges as a menacing force. She insists, "I did see you." “Alright Alright, I'm a peeping tom."

Jill Relates what happened on the car ride with Frankie, the night he learned Vicki was leaving, and she tells him he'll be glad to get rid of her because Jill is in love with him. Jill is just covering up her feelings. Frankie says Jill being in love with him, never entered his mind. Vicki is sure, "I know it's much deeper than that. That's why it’s so dangerous. Anything might happen."

Cornell writes down everything on his pad. Jill says that Vicki didn't mean the line about being glad to get rid of her, but he corrects her, “What she meant doesn't count. It's what she said.”

The night Jill found Vicki, as soon as she came out of the elevator she got a feeling something was wrong. There was music blasting from the radio. Frankie was there already – "Jill you don't think I did it, do you?" Jill is in shock.

Cornell goes back into the interrogation room with Frankie and tells him he knows about Vicki’s ‘get rid of me’ statement. The obsessed Cornell comes up with a scenario. Frankie’s mind got more and more inflamed with jealousy and hurt pride. Went up there and killed her in cold blood. Cornell loses his cool and lunges at Frankie, "I've got a mind to kill you right now."When Cornell gets rough, the other cops have to break it up. They all like Frankie and ask if he's got any tickets to the fights. They ask Cornell "What's the idea of riding him, so hard?” "I have years of experience in this racket. If that isn't the look of a guilty man, I'll take the rap myself." The District Attorney winds up getting his back up with Cornell when he focuses so much on Frankie’s guilt.

The District Attorney (Morris Ankrum) apologizes to Frankie. Jill is in the office too and tells him they think they know the identity of the killer. It’s the switchboard operator at the sisters’ apartment building. They think it’s Harry Williams. Jill leaves the police station and Frankie asks why they think it’s Williams. The D.A. tells him, William’s been missing since 5 pm last night, probably hiding out scared and shaky.

Frankie is released and later that night, Mature wakes up to find the huge, menacing Cregar sitting beside his bed, “Well that's the first time, I had a bad dream with my eyes open." “Someday you’re going to talk in your sleep, and when that day comes I want to be around.” The scene hints at Cornell’s repressed homosexual passion.

Cornell tells him he’ll get all the evidence he needs and tie him up like a pig in a slaughterhouse. Frankie unrattled, tells him, "You're the bright boy” and reminds him that they think Williams murdered Vicki. Victor Mature is so smooth, so mellow when he’s playing at being sarcastic, He says, "You're like something out of a museum you ought to have a magnifying glass and one of those trick hats with the ear flaps" Frankie throws Cornell out after he calls him cocky, and has had it his way too long. First with Vicki, then Jill. Cornell’s resentment is showing.

Jill finds Harry Williams who’s returned to the apartment building. She’s moving out, but he has already packed up her bags and taken them down to the lobby. Williams is a suspiciously hollow little insect who Jill finds strange. Frankie meets up with Robin at the police station. The cops show a reel of Vicki singing at a nightclub. Cornell watches her longingly which gives Frankie a window into Cornell’s longing for the dead girl. Cornell looks at Frankie with contempt.

The film of Vicki appears in the dark room filled with cigar smoke that makes wispy clouds float, and the rays of light from the projection booth. The light cast on Frankie's eyes is like an illuminated mask, it accentuates his epiphany "” that Cornell is obsessed with Vicki. He catches something in his stare. The light on Cornell’s face as HE stares back at Frankie, unmasks only half of his face, revealing the duplicity Cornell projects throughout the picture. It’s a brilliantly framed shot by Cronjager.

The film reel resurrects Vicki from the dead, like a ghost haunting the room. Robin Ray squirms in his chair and runs to get out. The door is locked. His behavior hints at his guilt. They put the lights on and bring him into the D.A.’s office. Ray tells them how he felt about her. She laughed at him. Called him "a has-been and didn't want to hitch her wagon to a falling star." He's the one that arranged the screen test but she went down there alone. He is obsolete, they decided they didn't need him. While he talks about her, Cornell looks out the window. Daylight casts patterns from the Venetian blinds that cut across his face. Odd angle profiles tilt the two-shot of Cornell and Mac off-kilter. Ray has an alibi. He was at a sanitarium. Cornell checked it out already and is gleeful that it rules out yet another suspect. He wants Frankie to fry for it. Cornell would have Frankie in the death house by now. “That won’t prevent you from going to the hot chair.” 

As Frankie is leaving the police station Cornell asks him for a lift uptown "Sure, always happy to oblige a goon"

Ed Cornell [bumming a ride in Frankie’s car] “I’m sorry to have to ask you to do this, but I’m a little short on cash lately. You see, I’ve spent so much of my own dough, trying to build up this case against you.”

Frankie Christopher (Victor Mature) “Well, if there’s anything you need, just let me know.”

Ed Cornell “Oh, I imagine they’ll make it right with me when I bring in the material for your trial. They usually do in these cases. I nick a guy on my own time and send him up to the chair, then I get back pay.”

Frankie Christopher “Must be a great life – like a garbage man, only with people!”

Ed Cornell “I got practically all the evidence I need now. I could arrest you today for that matter, but you might get some smart mouthpiece and get off with life instead of the chair. I won’t be satisfied until I’m *sure* it’s the chair.”

Frankie Christopher “You’re a gay dog, Cornell. You make me feel as if I’m driving a hearse!”

Ed Cornell “Oh, I know your type. I’ve seen hundreds of them. I don’t scare you enough to make you commit suicide, but I worry you just the same. And when the day comes they all act different. Some scream, a few faint, some light a cigarette and try a wisecrack. But it sticks in their throats – especially when they’re hung.”

Cornell shows up at Jill's new apartment to intimidate her. Jill “What’s the good of living without hope?” Ed Cornell signals his own personal torture- “It can be done.” He advises her to just play along, insisting that she’s not even sure Frankie’s innocent. Once he’s left, Jill pulls out a note from behind a framed painting on the wall. It's from Frankie to Vicki, "After what you did last night, the sooner you're out of the way the better it will be."

Frankie takes Jill to the fights and then out on the town. She asks if he ever brought Vicki to the fights, and tells him it’s the first New York nightclub she’s ever been to. The El Chico club, he first took Vicki to. She sees how nice he is without all the flashy bluster and pretense. He's actually very real. Cornell follows them. Frankie asks her why she suddenly called him, "The trouble with you is that you pretend you don't care about things but you do. You were very upset about Vicki’s death weren't You? He tells her he'd like to find the guy, –“Save the State on its electric bill. She was a good kid” Jill doesn't want him to be guilty. "Did you love her?" “No, do you think if I'd loved her I would have tried to exploit her the way I did?… Vicki was pretty, gay, and amusing She had lots to offer and I wanted to put her in the right place on the map. After all, that's my business But when a man really loves a woman, he doesn't want to plaster her face all over papers and magazines. He wants to keep her to himself."

Looking into her eyes, he tells her he’s in love with her. Larry Evans sees them together and calls in the story "Stepping out"¦ Dancing on the grave."

Frankie takes Jill to his favorite swimming spot. It’s a lovely scene, that brings some lightness to the external space in the story. She shows him the note he wrote to Vickie and he asks why she didn’t turn it in to the police. Jill tells him she knew he was innocent and what the note meant, at the moment they were dancing at the nightclub. When they are back at the apartment, Cornell walks in and takes the note. They cuff Frankie. Cornell who is obviously framing him is just waiting for the chance to catch him. Frankie tells him anyone could have written a note like that. He was burned up when Vicki dropped the bomb that she was leaving. He finds out that Cornell has planted a set of brass knuckles in his apartment. Vicki was hit hard behind the ear with a heavy object. The depraved Cornell punches Frankie in the guts. "You're like a rat in a hole."

As Cornell is about to take him downtown, Frankie is on the ground after Cornell’s hostile assault, Jill hits Cornell from behind and helps Frankie escape. Big fat head bullying him, she says.

Frankie proposes, “Mind marrying a hunted man?” She tells him, "Most married men have a hunted look anyway." He tells her his real name – Botticelli, the son of Italian immigrants. Then he shows her how to hide in the city. They duck into an adult movie house, watching the same picture over and over. Then they decide to split up for the time being and she goes to the public library. The cops find her, and Frankie sees them taking her away. The newspaper headline says "Christopher eludes police dragnet." Cornell stalks the streets. Frankie sneaks up on him. "Let Jill go”, and he'll turn himself in. Ed Cornell (Laird Cregar) “I’ll follow you into your grave. I’ll write my name on your tombstone.” "You're not a cop you're crazy trying to frame an innocent man." Frankie throws a tootsie roll at him and takes off. Cornell assures him, he'll eventually get him. Always smirking like the devil.

Cornell tells the D.A. a parable about the African Butterfly and how to trap the male to set the female free. He wants him to let Jill out of her box to lure Frankie. She goes home, sneaks out through the window, and surprises Frankie at the adult movie house. At the apartment, she has found little cards from flowers that were sent to Vicki, and at the funeral. She shows them to Frankie. The message on the cards says, "Because I promised."

They go to Rosedale Cemetery and when he meets the caretaker, Frankie pretends to be a reporter and asks if anybody lately has been around Vicki’s grave. There were many flowers at the funeral, and the caretaker tells him that the grave's been getting flowers each day since she died. Frankie learns where they were sent from, and goes to Keating Florist. It turns out that Larry sent them. Frankie confronts Larry who admits he was with Vicki the day she died. He had promised to send her flowers every day when she left for Hollywood, and he wanted to keep his word. Larry winds up giving Frankie a clue about the killer, and he goes to the old apartment and gets Mac to give him a half hour. He has a strong hunch.

The next scene is ripe with atmosphere when Frankie leans against the wall in Vicki’s old apartment. The lattice shadows fence Frankie in. Harry Williams is sleeping at the front desk. Vicki rings the desk and speaks in Vicki's voice "Hello Harry, this is Vicki" He's visibly shaken. Frankie watches his reaction. His eyes open wider as the buzzing mocks him, "Harry this is Vicki. Why did you do it, Harry? Didn't you love me?" Frankie confronts Williams. “You let yourself in with your passkey and waited for her. You loved her. She panicked and screamed.” Williams admits,  “I told the cop that when he chased me to Brooklyn. Cornell knew all along it was Williams. The dirty Cornell told him to just come back and keep his mouth shut. Mac hears the confession. Frankie tells him, he wants 5 minutes alone with Cornell.

He goes to his apartment and finds a perverse and macabre shrine to Vicki. Her image is like a talisman in his suffocating little apartment. He discovers the prominent photograph of Vicki in an elaborate frame. Cornell unaware that Frankie is there, comes in and places fresh flowers underneath the photograph, as an offering. Frankie watches then emerges, "You knew. Why'd you want to fry me?"He tells Frankie, "I lost Vicki long before Williams killed her. You were the one who took her away from me" Cornell wanted to marry her. Had this furnished apartment set up. Bought her perfume. “Til he came along and put ideas in her head. She thought she was too good for me. He could have killed him then.” Frankie puts it to him, "Why didn't ya?" "Cause I had the hook in your mouth and I wanted to see you suffer."

Cornell resented Frankie’s closeness to Vicki and inhabits a world that excludes him. In contrast to the suave Frankie Christopher, he is a lumbering and awkward outsider. To Cornell, Vicki will always be as unattainable as the first time he gazed upon her through the window. He was struck by her beauty, but she was completely and forever out of his reach. Cornell is like a lurking monster straight out of a classic horror movie. His uneasy presence lends to a surreal and menacing mood.

A Trailer a day keeps the Boogeyman away! I Wake Up Screaming (1941)

Continue reading “31 Flavors of Noir on the Fringe to Lure You In! Part 1” →

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:” →

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

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

"”Catholic Legion of Decency pledge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT IS A CODED GAY CHARACTER?

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

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

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

 

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

The Great Villain Blogathon 2019 Dame Judith Anderson as Mrs. Danvers “Do you think the dead come back and watch the living?”

Thanks to Ruth of Silver Screenings. Kristine from Speakeasy and Karen of Shadows and Satin!

REBECCA (1940)

Men are simpler than you imagine my sweet child. But what goes on in the twisted, tortuous minds of women would baffle anyone. "“Daphne du Maurier, Rebecca

First off, while I cover a good deal of the film, I take it only as far as I can before giving anything away about the great Rebecca. My focus is on the mystery surrounding the first mistress of Manderley’s devoted servant Mrs. Danvers. So I will not be referencing any departures from du Maurier’s novel, nor Rebecca herself or Olivier and Fontaine’s marital outcome. I believe there are still fans of Hitchcock who have not seen the picture, and I want to leave them something to enjoy!

One of the most enduring classic thrillers, psychological thriller, suspenseful and intriguing in the realm of romantic Gothic mysteries. Considered a ‘woman’s picture.’ Brooding atmosphere, perfect pacing, and acting composition from the score to the set design to the cinematography. Manderley is a "˜castle of the mind.' It is too shadowy too remote too unreal because it IS in the mind. It exists now only in the heroine's mind. "Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again" As these words are visualized on the screen, we don't see a real Manderley, but a Manderley of the mind, a nightmare, a ghost. So imperceptible and subtle, Manderley is one of the vital characters of the story.

As the archetype of the woman-in-peril, Joan Fontaine conjures up the timid young woman who marries the moody and brooding Maxim de Winter, though all actors are overshadowed by Anderson's on-fire performance.

As scholar Mary Ann Doane points out that Rebecca is “initiating the ‘paranoia’ strand of the woman’s picture, a sub-genre in which gullible women discover that the men they married possess strange and sinister intents. The cycle continued through the 1940s-Suspicion (1941) Gaslight (George Cukor 1944) and Secret Beyond the Door… (Fritz Lang, 1948).”

Rebecca was adapted from author Daphne du Maurier and brought to the Gothic paroxysm on screen not only by master Alfred Hitchcock but by the exquisitely low burning maniacal machinations of Dame Judith Anderson (Lady Scarface 1941, All Through the Night 1942, Kings Row 1942, Laura 1944, And Then There Were None 1945, The Strange Love of Martha Ivers 1946, The Red House 1947, The Furies 1950, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof 1958, Inn of the Damned 1975) as Miss Danvers — the epitome of the word villainess.

Mrs. Danvers– That austere cold stare, the measured calculating rhythm of each syllable spoken like serpent-toothed silk cutting like finely sharpened knives to cut the jugular — a harridan — no, a harpy — no, a carefully slithering serpent of a woman in the vein of Angela Lansbury’s sinister housekeeper Nancy who helped the poor bedevil Ingrid Bergman feel gaslighted in Gaslight 1944 or the menacing Gale Sandaagard as Mrs. Hammond that same year in The Letter (1940), but Anderson has the benefit of du Maurier’s dialogue and Hitchcock’s direction at her command.

Interestingly enough, in reading the tensions that had developed over the autonomy in making du Maurier’s story on screen between two headstrong filmmakers, I imagined what the film might have been like in the hands of Val Lewton. Here is an excerpt from Leonard Leff’s book- “For Selznick who read a synopsis of the manuscript in late spring 1938, the story of the novel’s awkward and shy heroine seemed ideal. Selznick’s most impressive discoveries tended to be young women, including Ingrid Bergman, Vivien Leigh, and Joan Fontaine; furthermore, had had long been associated with the industry’s premier “women’s director” George Cukor. In certain respects a “woman’s producer,” attuned to the sensibilities and psychology of the American female (at least as purveyed by the era’s mass-circulation magazines), Selznick agreed with story editor Val Lewton that the second Mrs. de Winter “probably exemplifies the feeling that most young women have about themselves.”

From Hitchcock and Selznick: The Rich and Strange Collaboration of Alfred Hitchcock and David O. Selznick-by Leonard J. Leff- Among the hundred of manuscripts, galley proofs, ad publish novels that poured into the East Coast offices of Selznick International every month, Kay Brown read only a few that she could enthusiastically recommend. Daphne du Maurier’s Rebecca became one of them. Rebecca is “the most fascinating story I have read in ages,” Born wired Hollywood, a certain best-seller. In the novel, a plain and innocent young women (the first-person narrator, whose name du Maurier never reveals) serves as paid companion to a crass American dowager visiting the Riviera. Gossip has it that the aristocratic Maxim de Winter has fled England to Monte Carlo in order to elude painful memories of his recently deceased, much-beloved wife, the fabulously beautiful Rebecca; yet almost inexplicably he proposes marriage to the unglamourous paid companion. Following a honeymoon in Venice, the newlyweds return to Manderley, de Winter’s mansion. Here, the young bride confronts not only the memory of Rebecca-which seems to permeate the estate and to preoccupy and torment its owner-but also her morose husband and the forbidding Mrs. Danvers, Rebecca’s devoted housekeeper.”

Directed by Alfred Hitchcock with a screenplay by Robert Sherwood and Joan Harrison (who produced Alfred Hitchcock's anthology suspense crime television show.) Adapted by Philip MacDonald and Michael Hogan from the 1938 novel by Daphne du Maurier. Music composed by Franz Waxman (Suspicion 1941, Sunset Boulevard 1950, A Place in the Sun 1951.) whose score at times sounds like a classic B horror film by RKO with its eerie organ tremolos.

Cinematography by George Barnes. (That Uncertain Feeling 1941, Ladies in Retirement 1941, Jane Eyre 1943, Spellbound 1945, Mourning Becomes Electra 1947, Force of Evil 1948, The File on Thelma Jordon 1950, War of the Worlds 1953). Art Department/Interior Design -Howard Bristol, Joseph B. Platt, and Eric Stacey. Art director Lyle Wheeler. Film editor James Newcom. Supervising film editor Hal C. Kern. Interiors designed by Joseph B Platt. Fashions by Irene.

The lighting for Rebecca creates a forbidden sense of place. The shadows distinguish where the secrets lurk, with the Gothic architecture and repressed desire.

“She” is in the innocence of white and Mrs. Danvers is always advancing in black…

Rebecca (1940) is auteur Hitchcock’s Gothic style thriller that often delves into the realm of classical horror, ‘old dark house’  or haunting ghost story triggered by the remnants of a beautiful dead woman’s hold on an ancestral manor house and the new marriage brought home to thrive in its shadow. As scholar Tania Modleski writes Rebecca is a ‘presence’ which is never actually present. The character of Rebecca is symbolic of a subversive female desire, and Maxim de Winter who represents the patriarchal rule is terrorized and bound by her presence though she cannot be seen, her power remains intact within the walls of Manderley.

There was tension and discord between director Hitchcock who wanted control over the project and producer David O. Selznick. Though Hitchcock is one of the directors who manages to shake off any solid labels on his work, Rebecca is considered his first film noir. It was Hitchcock’s first American/Hollywood film, although it exudes that distinctly British style from his earlier mysteries. The melancholy tone of Robert E. Sherwood and Hitchcock regular Joan Harrison’s screenplay captures Daphne du Maurier’s 1938 disquieting Gothic novel perfectly.

Behind the scenes of Rebecca 1940 Alfred Hitchcock and Judith Anderson photo by Fred Parrish

Rebecca stars Laurence Olivier as Maxim de Winter, Joan Fontaine as Mrs. de Winter, George Sanders as Jack Favell, Judith Anderson as the sinister chatelaine Mrs. Danvers Nigel Bruce as Major Giles Lacy, C. Aubrey Smith as Colonel Julyan Reginald Deny as Frank Crawley, Gladys Cooper as Beatrice Lacy, Philip Winter as Robert, Edward Fielding as Frith, Florence Bates (The Moon and Sixpence 1942, Whistle Stop 1946, Portrait of Jennie 1948, A Letter to Three Wives 1949, Les Miserables 1952) as Mrs. Van Hopper, Leo G. Carroll as Dr. Baker

The master Hitchcock and cinematographer George Barnes know how to create a moody, atmospheric landscape of suspense. In Rebecca, Joan Fontaine is given the role of an innocent and painfully shy young heroine who remains nameless throughout the film, as she is in du Maurier’s novel. I read that there were early drafts of the original script where the heroine’s name was Daphne as in the writer, but obviously, the decision to keep her without a given name. She meets the brooding aristocratic widower Maxim de Winter played almost too effortlessly by Laurence Olivier who is the master of Manderley. They marry and Maxim brings his new bride back to his ancestral home. At first, she is clumsy and awkward trying to find her way around as mistress of the house. The second Mrs. de Winter is bewildered and haunted by the unseen presence of the first Mrs. de Winter, the uncanny and beautiful Rebecca, who has died in a boating accident a year before. Mrs. de Winter is psychically tortured by the sinister Mrs. Danvers who was Rebecca’s faithful and adoring servant played by the always imposing Judith Anderson, who bombards Joan Fontaine with memories and tactile possessions of the dead woman, whom we never see. She is truly a phantom that haunts the film, the narrative, and our heroine.

Considered for the leading role in Rebecca was Loretta Young, Margaret Sullivan, Anne Baxter, and Vivien Leigh who was restricted by her role in Gone With the Wind 1939. Director Alfred Hitchcock won the Oscar for Best Picture his first and only Best Picture Oscar. George Barnes also won the Academy Award for his Cinematography. Judith Anderson was nominated for Best Supporting Actress as the menacing Mrs. Danvers, the only time in her career she was ever nominated.

Continue reading “The Great Villain Blogathon 2019 Dame Judith Anderson as Mrs. Danvers “Do you think the dead come back and watch the living?”” →

Happy Birthday Barbara Parkins May 22

The Raven-haired sylph who “walks in beauty like the night… Of cloudless climes and starry skies; And all that's best of dark and bright; Meet in her aspect and her eyes…” — Lord Byron

Barbara Parkins as B.A. in a scene from the film ‘The Kremlin Letter’, 1970. (Photo by 20th Century-Fox/Getty)

It is so easy to look upon Barbara Parkins’ exquisite beauty and make that – the initial distinction you recall about her as an actress before recounting the roles she’s contributed to, the iconic roles that have left an impression on our cultural consciousness.

As Betty Anderson of Peyton Place and Anne Welles in Valley of the Dolls. But beyond the glamour and the pulp fiction and the melodrama and the camp, there is an actress who not only possessed an otherworldly beauty but a depth of character and quality. As Betty Anderson, she broke ground in a role that framed her as a young woman whose trajectory became more empowered within the small, moralistic New England town like Peyton Place that would first judge her. And through a lot of painful, solitary self-discovery, newly mined, and self-respect. Barbara Parkins was one of the actresses who led the way as a strong figure on television in that decade.

I have always been drawn to Barbara Parkins, her inherent sensuality, sophistication, and dreamy voice. There’s a deep well of desire and poetry simmering below that obvious beauty. She brings that sensuality to every versatile role as an actress. And that is why I’ve been in love with her since I first saw her.

Barbara Parkins was among the women famous photographer Patrick Lichfield chose to be included in his 1983 book, “The Most Beautiful Women.” Continue reading “Happy Birthday Barbara Parkins May 22” →