Tag Archives: Roger Corman

Price, Corman, Lovecraft: The Haunted Palace

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

After the interminably long gap between my last two posts, this time, I really wanted to just jump in to something fun that I was sure I could write about immediately, and today’s film certainly fit the bill. Back in the winter, I went on a run of Vincent Price films, particularly digging into some of his appearances in Roger Corman’s Poe cycle. And just last week, I sang the praises of an excellent Lovecraft adaptation, From Beyond (1986). Thus, seeing that Corman’s The Haunted Palace (1963) had recently shown up on Shudder, I leapt at it as a good opportunity to continue in two veins (Price/Corman and Lovecraft). Generally included in the Poe cycle (it stars Vincent Price and takes its name from a Poe poem, two stanzas of which are recited in the film), it is actually more historically significant in the annals of horror for being the first direct filmic adaptation of a work by H.P. Lovecraft, in this case, “The Case of Charles Dexter Ward.”

At the outset, I will say that while both different in style from the other Poe films and a very loose adaptation of the Lovecraft story, it did not disappoint, so let’s get into it. There will be some spoilers, but I doubt they would actually ruin your appreciation of the film, so don’t let them stop you…

The Haunted Palace (1963)

Apparently, Roger Corman had wanted to take a break from the Poe films when he chose to adapt Lovecraft’s tale, originally giving it the title of “The Haunted Village,” but higher ups at AIP felt the Poe brand was too valuable to eschew and insisted on the name change. Beyond the title, it does share certain surface qualities with the films of the Poe cycle, while very much being its own beast. Corman sets the tale earlier than Lovecraft, capitalizing on the period vibes of his other films, and contrives to place a deteriorating castle (the eponymous palace) in its New England locale, the fictional town of Arkham, the aging structure a familiar sight (and knowing his budgets and cost conscious practices, possibly allowing him to re-use previous sets). There is also a kind of literary, low-budget-classiness about the whole affair – it just feels different from the harsher roads horror would be treading by decade’s end. Finally, there is the recurring element of a house and a family cursed by the past, of horror, of evil being something to inherit.

That said, very loosely adapting a novella by Lovecraft (as opposed to very loosely adapting the works of Poe), The Haunted Palace really does have a different character – pulpier, more spook house than quasi-historical art house. More fog is pumped in front of the camera, more spider-webs are draped over the furniture, more distressing animals randomly startle someone (why is there a large snake slithering in the presumably chilly New England kitchen cupboard?), and more fearful villagers carry torches to rid their town of a terrible evil than you can shake a stick at. There are one or two jumps, though I wouldn’t call it “scary” per se, but there is tons of autumnal, Halloweeny atmosphere; it is a fun, old fashioned horror-show and I think it could be just a perfect movie for a rainy October Saturday afternoon, bundled in a blanket on the sofa.

Following the source material, Price plays dual roles: Charles Dexter Ward (though he bears no resemblance to the young, bookishly obsessive title character of Lovecraft’s novella) and his great, great grandfather, the eeeevil Joseph Curwen, a researcher in the black arts, burned as a warlock centuries earlier. Having inherited a decrepit castle in the small town of Arkham, Ward and his wife, Ann (Debra Paget in her last screen role) come to check the place out, only to be warned at every turn to shove off and go back from whence they came (seriously, I hope to one day open the door to a tavern and have everyone go silent and watch me with such terror and concern – that’s a life goal right there). I particularly enjoy an interchange when the Ward couple questions the idea of a “palace” in America, and an angry villager explains it had been brought over stone by stone “from Europe, somewhere – no one knows – no one wants to know!” This friendly New Englander doesn’t only hate accursed necromancers – he also apparently can’t stand the idea of Europe.

They take against Ward so immediately because he’s a dead ringer for his sorcerous ancestor who had cursed the town as he burned, and whose arcane experiments generations earlier (involving breeding the mesmerized women of the community with deep, dark things from another realm) are the reason that Arkham has an inordinately high rate of people with disabilities (being born without eyes or mouths, having green, scaly skin, being an inarticulate, rampaging monster – that sort of thing). When they finally get to the castle, Ward finds a portrait of his great, great grandfather, which somehow bores into his soul and starts to take over his body and his mind.

Without going into too many details, though Ward puts up a struggle for continued inhabitance of his own flesh, it is a futile one, and before long, Curwen is up to his old sinister ways, when he isn’t systematically burning townspeople so that they might feel flames on their tender flesh as once he’d done, or trying to raise his long dead mistress from the grave. Honestly, I felt there was an almost tragicomic thread about how Curwen needs to get back to his true calling, the serious matter of raising some sort of Great Old One and possibly dooming the world (or more), but driven by his all too human emotions of vengeance and love, he gets distracted from this (un)holy task, and that leads to his downfall.

As a Lovecraft piece, though we see or at least have referenced such iconic elements of the mythos as the Necronomicon, Yog-Sothoth, and Cthulhu, this occurs mostly in passing: early 60s Easter eggs for Lovecraft fans. Past that, while Corman includes the portrait and the idea of the contemporary man’s life being taken over by that of his ancestor, most of the story is new for the film. We still do retain the horrific pit in the basement, containing something with an odd number of arms that never comes into focus (it also doesn’t seem to move, so much as the camera just jitters), but I don’t know that Corman exactly captured that unknowable awfulness so characteristic of the author, bringing an unfortunately anti-climactic note to some later sequences.

That may read as a criticism, but this is no more of a departure than the Poe films. Furthermore, I don’t know for sure, but I believe that in the early 60s, Lovecraft’s work was still only appreciated by a pretty fringe readership who didn’t need to be served to ensure commercial success (thus we should be happy with what we can get), and furthermore, while there are many elements here that feel ‘typical’ of a kind of old fashioned horror flick (fog, scraggly trees, creaking gates, secret passageways in an ancient castle, etc.), it also includes a surprising amount of genuine weirdness, much of which (in Lovecraftian fashion) goes unexplained. We are never told how to interpret the blurry glowing thing in the basement; the notion of the town haunted by its own deformity (admittedly, ‘problematic’ (or just plain offensive) from a modern perspective regarding disability) feels specific (though it’s closer to “The Shadow over Innsmouth” than “The Case of Charles Dexter Ward”); and the above mentioned reference to Lovecraftian mythos isn’t explicated, leaving an unfamiliar audience possibly scratching their heads about just what is being summoned (though as I’ve mentioned before, I love how this material offers something so other, dangerous, and horrific without recourse to a Christian notion of the “infernal” – Curwen is not a “Satanist” and a cross would do no one any good).

I mentioned that the blurry thing doesn’t move, and I think one weakness of the film is a lack of creative solutions for presenting (or even just effectively implying) this mysterious horror. Clearly Corman couldn’t produce the kinds of wild practical effects available to Stuart Gordon (last week’s From Beyond is really goopy). However, he did have one special effect that can’t be matched, and that is Vincent Price himself. As with Gordon’s film, Lovecraft’s peculiar style best reveals itself not in fantastical visuals, but in the acting. And the qualities Price could bring to the film were both specific to him and essential.

Obviously, he could chew the scenery, and he’s given the opportunity to do so here once or twice, but I don’t think that’s where his talent really lay. Rather, it was in the nuance. So consistently does he take a line that could be big and make it small, so often does he surprise me with a tiny, sudden shift in tone, reacting to something from without or within (a small sound, a passing thought, a toothache – we don’t always see what it is, but the reaction is so alive and specific – he never traded in bombastic generalities). There is a standout moment when Ward first sees the cursed portrait of his grandfather and in the span of a couple of seconds, so much passes across his face: shock, fascination, fear – there is some unheard first contact from beyond the grave, it revolts him, and then he shakes it all off, is a bit embarrassed or puzzled, recovers with a distant smile, reassures his concerned wife, and they move on. It could have been two minutes of melodramatic voiceover, but instead, it’s about 2 seconds of face acting, or less. It is all bigger than life, true – and this is necessary in order to do justice to the source, but it is also so human, so rich; no matter how dialed up the performance, he never tipped over into artificiality, never lost his grounding. The fact that this man never won an Oscar is just proof of how meaningless such awards are. He was a national treasure.

On one level, we see clear differences between his portrayals of Ward and Curwen, the former an affable, friendly, warm, and loving man, and the latter a fiend, but there is more. Price often brings a softness to Curwen’s villainy that makes it all the more chilling. And it’s not just a quiet intensity as some might do (an effective but possibly obvious affect), but rather, it’s often gentle, even tender. This particular monster is not lacking in human feeling and sensitivity, even if he really is just the worst (subjecting the mesmerized women of Arkham to forced impregnation by otherworldly monsters, assaulting Ward’s wife, and you know, possibly trying to destroy the world). In each moment, I feel Vincent Price makes the most interesting choice, and no matter how repugnant the character, he is never less than magnetic to watch. These qualities are why we still know his work today, and this film couldn’t function without him. I understand some had wanted a younger actor (which would have better matched the story), but Corman was right to stick to his guns and keep Price in the role.

So that is The Haunted Palace. Not the scariest movie I’ve ever seen, sure, but certainly an old fashioned good time, totally itself, and enriched beyond measure by Price’s singular talents. October’s just around the corner – maybe find a rainy afternoon and give it a watch.

—

Before signing off today, this is the second anniversary of starting this blog and I just wanted to mark the occasion. I think it’s been a good year and there’s much that I’m proud of.

Basic numbers: I wrote about 130,000 words in 39 posts (just a bit shorter than “The Shining”). I added 58 movie reviews and one book review (I have to read more horror – I know). I did some memoiring in sharing a horror themed holiday I had last year, detailing a Halloween performance of the Cabaret I work with, and reconstructing my personal history with the horror genre. I finally put down in words an analysis of King’s and Kubrick’s respective Shinings that I’ve had rolling around in my head for years. In doing some surface level research for a small performance, I roughed out some thoughts on 50s-teensploitation-as-horror. And I also pinned down a few ideas about sleaze, exploitation, camp, and campiness that have been scratching at the corners of my mind for a while. Along the way, I’ve given myself license to devote thought, energy, and care to consideration of horror films new and old, mainstream and more obscure, that give me pleasure. In a life full of many responsibilities, this time is a gift I give myself – I hope its result is interesting, edifying, humorous, or in some other way valuable for you, dear reader.

Though the blog has never taken on a particularly interactive quality, google analytics tells me more people are coming (mostly for the now five posts on the Lesbian Vampire subgenre – what can I say, people love lesbian vampires), so if you are newly here, welcome to my blog. And if you visit periodically, thank you so much for coming back. We may not communicate directly (though I cordially invite you to leave a comment – it’s always exciting to get one that isn’t from Russian spambots advertising porn and casino links), but I’m glad to know you’re out there. Though I mainly write for my own satisfaction, somehow it wouldn’t be satisfying enough to do it every week (or two, or three – keeping deadlines is tough) if you weren’t looking at it. Hope you keep coming back!

Elvira’s Haunted Hills: Camp, Shtick, Homage, and Boob Jokes

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

The last couple of weeks have entailed a series of connections. Thanks to a Christmas present, I went on a run of Vincent Price movies. That led me to take in some of Price’s work with Roger Corman. And in turn, watching some of those great old Poe pictures, I got an itch to revisit something I’d first seen only a few months ago, a loving parody of those films, Elvira’s Haunted Hills (2001). When I first watched it in October, featured on the Joe Bob Briggs Halloween special on Shudder, with Cassandra Peterson (the performer behind Elvira) as a guest, it took me quite a while to get into it. I was enjoying the interview portions of the show, hearing Peterson’s stories of her career and the hard and costly road of making the movie, but the humor of the film just wasn’t landing. But somehow, over time, I started to get it. I hadn’t seen the movies it was lampooning (generally, the Corman Poe cycle, with a pinch of Hammer Horror thrown in), but I started to catch what was being sent up and by the end, I kind of loved it.

Having finally watched a few of Corman’s flicks, I really wanted to give this another watch and see how it played with more knowledge of its inspiration.  So, that’s what we’re doing today. There will be some spoilers, but I think that is less troublesome in a work of parody such as this.

Elvira’s Haunted Hills (2001)

Elvira is an interesting figure in the horror landscape. A horror host since 1981 (before that having worked with a wide range of big names, from Elvis to Fellini), her act walks a line between Borsht Belt shtick with endless cheesy one liners; a kind of camp sexuality wherein she puts on exaggerated characteristics of femininity in a manner not dissimilar to a drag queen, all the while making a constant joke of it – at once, selling and sending up the “sexiness” (there’s no situation she won’t turn into a joke about her chest); and always warmly, lovingly celebrating the Halloween of it all – the fun play with spookiness and the macabre.  It’s an odd and unique balancing act, and maybe it doesn’t always work, but that’s where the camp comes in – I think it isn’t always supposed to work – the joke not landing is sometimes part of the bit (and sometimes the failed joke is the actual gag) – there is an irony at the heart of it all that shines through even when a superficial laugh falls flat (insert boob joke here).

Generally, that all applies to this film – it is cheesy. The jokes often fizzle. It goes for the lowest hanging fruit possible – both in its “parody” and in its “bawdiness”; but there is a secret kernel hidden at its center: something knowing, a genuine love of the movies it purports to make fun of, a brave, open-hearted willingness to do the absolutely stupidest things for a laugh. All of this makes it kind of infectious, and surprisingly loveable.

We follow Elvira (basically as her anachronistic “valley-girl” inspired self) travelling to Paris to star in her can-can revue, waylaid at a spooooky old castle filled with nods to (and direct rip-offs of) characters from the Corman Poe films (having only seen the three so far, I can’t track every reference, but it draws largely from House of Usher and Pit and the Pendulum). Family patriarch who can’t stand loud sounds? Check. Someone walled up in the basement? You betcha. A spot of catalepsy? Better believe it! Torture chambers, the dark burden of family history, revelation of marital betrayals, a crumbling ancient mansion, tainted by genealogical evil, waiting to sink into the ground, and prose as purple as sweet plum wine? You want it – we got it! Even the opening credits, with abstract paintings undulating behind the text, suggests the kind of thing Corman was doing in the early 60s.

It turns out that Elvira is a dead ringer for Lady Elura, the first wife, ten years dead, of the long suffering Lord Hellsubus (Richard O’Brien of Rocky Horror Picture Show), but she also seems to sometimes actually be Elura reincarnate, or somehow her descendant – it’s not quite clear, which sets in motion a series of attempted murders, explorations through hidden, cobweb infested passages, and shocking reveals. All the while, Elvira is simply trying to catch a ride to continue on to Paris to do her show (though she is happy to be momentarily delayed by hooking up with the ridiculously hunky and poorly dubbed, Fabio-esque stable boy). By the end, she is of course tied to a slab with a sharpened pendulum swinging above her, but also of course, as the rope tying her down goes over her ample bosom, it gets cut before she does and she manages to escape (there really aren’t any “haunted hills” in this film – that’ s just another boob joke too).

But this movie is not that focused on plot, so much as setting up scenarios to indulge in the silliest gags imaginable. Lord Hellsubus can’t endure loud sounds so there’s a slapstick routine of Elvira and her assistant, Zou Zou, bumping into every suit of armor, knocking over ever vase and hitting every gong. Elvira runs through a graveyard, only to see a spider in its web and scream, see a raven fly past her head and scream, see a bunny sitting sweetly in front of a tombstone and scream.

After having Zou Zou add more bubbles to her Jacuzzi (by blowing into a hose), Elvira is about to get out of the bath when she admonishes the camera operator to look away cause she doesn’t want to “blow the rating on this picture.” She even gets a big, music hall number, with singing and dancing and an applause sign on her tush.

Some of this is pretty funny, and regrettably some of it isn’t. It’s a bit strange, but I think I actually enjoyed the movie more on my first watch when I’d not yet seen the films it was referencing. Having watched them so recently, some of the referential comedy comes off as just that – trying to get a laugh for recreating exact scenes and dialogue from its referents without always coming up with its own jokes. Text frequently feels directly pulled from House of Usher or Pit and the Pendulum. It’s closer to Mel Brooks’s Dracula: Dead and Loving It than it is to his superior Young Frankenstein; the later really making its own characters and comic situations out of the source material, and the former depending much more on recreating (in a silly fashion) specific moments from Dracula films (generally Coppola’s 1992 picture).  When I didn’t know the original films, I picked up on the joke that it was sending up a kind of film, a kind of melodramatic, over-the-top, old fashioned, but beloved work. Now, it feels more like it is just redoing bits (but with more slapstick, boob jokes, and sound effects that go “boing!”). It is still enjoyable and lovable in its intentional ridiculousness, but it doesn’t feel as inspired in its stupidity as I’d originally taken it to be.

Also, some elements suffer in comparison. The first time I watched it, I’d imagined that O’Brien’s Lord Hellsubus was affectionately aping a kind of performance one might have found in the originals, and I really got a kick out of just how madcap he went, his performance really growing on me over the film and staying with me afterwards. He was going on a wild ride, and I loved going there with him. However, having just watched some of the Corman movies, I can see how the big choices O’Brien is making are actually the opposite of what Price had done 50 years earlier with a parallel role. Where Price gets quiet, O’Brien gets loud; where Price stays grounded, O’Brien goes round the bend; where Price tenderly touches emotional depths, bringing forth a horrific, subtle shudder, O’Brien waves his arms about and shouts his head off.

That said, I don’t want to be unfair to this actor – what was he supposed to do? Try to recreate Price’s performance beat for beat (and almost certainly fail) – isn’t it better to go in his own direction? And what he’s doing is unquestionably appropriate for the loony tunes world his role exists in – something as gentle and whole as Price had done could have been lost amidst the sight gags and double entendres. Maybe playing it this way just serves to better homage Price’s talent (the movie is dedicated to him), highlighting the surprising and oh-so-successful choices he made by showing the path not taken.

 As a whole, this movie is such an odd duck. I really do have affection for it, but I wonder who they thought they were making it for. It has a goofy sense of humor that perhaps a nine year old could best appreciate while it revolves around references to a series of movies no nine year old is likely to have seen. It’s full of allusions to horrific acts (with just a little bit of cartoony gore thrown in at the end), but it is not remotely scary. It leans hard on sex jokes but it still comes off as entirely wholesome. It approaches its source material with such inane absurdity, but it is obvious how much it adores those earlier films. It really does feel like a labor of love, which I understand it was for Peterson and her team. Apparently, she had trouble getting financing, poured loads of her own money into getting the picture finished (partly funded by mortgaging her home), and then couldn’t really get it distributed and took a huge financial loss – in the end, she mostly ended up screening it as a part of AIDS fundraisers she was involved with.

Of course, before she gets stretched out, a character appreciatively comments, “nice rack!”

In the end, for all its faults, I still feel like championing this picture – I think it’s been little seen and while the cohort who will really appreciate it is probably quite small, I really hope those people find this movie. Their inner vaudevillian, sixties-horror-loving child will thank them for it.

Poe, Corman, Price: House of Usher, Pit and the Pendulum, The Masque of the Red Death

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

Sometimes when I mention to people that I’m a horror fan and even more, that I have a horror blog, I get the response of, “hey, I like horror movies, what’s good?” and I so rarely know what to tell them. I’m stymied by not knowing how to curate the best suggestion for this person in this moment. Furthermore I expect they often want something new – what’s in cinemas now, what’s just hit Netflix – and I’m always out of date. One reason for that is that I always have so much catching up to do. I feel like I’ve watched so many films, read so many books, and yet there is always so much more (so much of it, essential viewing) that I’ve not yet seen. It’s a kind of fractal experience – no matter which point you choose to dive into – any can yield endless, recursive depth to monopolize your attention, and the alternative is to surf ad infinitum upon the surface, sampling bits and bobs and still missing out on so much (Letterboxd informs me that there were 1,269 feature length horror films released in 2022 alone). So right now, I’m in the midst of a project to somewhat fill-in one significant gap – exploring more fully the works of Vincent Price – one of horror’s biggest names, whom I had previously seen shamefully little of.

So now, having thoroughly enjoyed him in Dragonwyck, House on Haunted Hill, Witchfinder General, and Theatre of Blood (all of which I’d seen previously), and House of Wax, The Last Man on Earth, and The Abominable Dr. Phibes (which I watched for last week’s post), I’m pretty excited to finally try out some of his work with Roger Corman in the iconic (if pretty loose) Poe adaptations. I’m really looking forward to this as a) I’ve really been enjoying his painstakingly mannered, and yet gently rounded performances, and b) while I still won’t be any kind of expert in his oeuvre, I at least feel like I won’t embarrass myself at a cocktail party (people can judge you harshly upon learning that you’ve never seen 1964’s The Tomb of Ligeia). So join me as I indulge in House of Usher (1960), Pit and the Pendulum (1961), and The Masque of the Red Death (1964). As always, there will be spoilers, so be forewarned.

House of Usher (1960)

The first of this cycle, I understand this was a departure for Corman, who had been in the habit at AIP (American International Pictures) of producing/directing two black and white films back to back, for a small budget in about ten days, intended to be released as a double bill. Wanting to paint on a larger canvas, Corman convinced those holding the purse strings to increase the budget and filming time by about 50% and let him do it wide screen in color, to go after a different corner of the market and get a larger return. Let me preface this by saying that I loved this film, but with my 2023 sense of audience tastes, I’m surprised that this was the project they chose to roll the dice on, that they were sure it was a good bet. It probably says something about how audiences have changed (for the worse) that I can’t imagine a general audience today having the patience for this slow, steady, atmospheric, beautiful picture. And the target audience was reportedly teen boys (Corman thought they’d be into it because Poe was being taught in schools at the time)! But I’m so glad they did, because House of Usher is just gorgeous.

Adapted very loosely by Richard Matheson (who wrote last week’s The Last Man on Earth), the story is incredibly simple (again – it’s hard to imagine this being a hit today – almost nothing happens). A young man, Philip Winthrop, travels through a desolate landscape to a crumbling old mansion somewhere in New England to see his fiancé, Madeline Usher. When he arrives, her brother, Roderick (Price), who has a heightened condition of the senses such that he cannot bear loud sounds, rough fabrics, or food more flavorful than a bland mash, tells him to leave as she is very ill, carrying the taint of evil that has run through the family for generations, which has furthermore corrupted the house as well as the very land itself. With her hereditary predisposition to madness and cruelty, marriage and children are quite out of the question. Roderick orders Philip to leave the two siblings to die in their rotting abode such that the curse might pass with them. Philip refuses, but after a spell of catalepsy (in which she appears dead), Roderick has Madeline prematurely buried to ensure the two will not marry. This ends badly, as you might expect.

This is not a scary film. Nothing jumps out at you, and there is no real supernatural menace. Still, the three main characters all inhabit a space of horror made physical, both in terms of pathetic fallacy, and how they are trapped and haunted by what they perceive around them. Philip has come to a house of madness wherein Roderick imprisons and attempts to murder the woman he loves – from Philip’s perspective, Roderick is a dangerous, abusive psychopath. Madeline’s whole life has been lived under the dark cloud of her brother’s horror stories, and now she finds herself caged, not allowed to live and love as she will (also, being buried alive is unpleasant and apparently drives you to madness and bloody rage). Finally, Roderick carries the most refined and tragic sense of horror, certain as he is of his dark fate and responsibility, haunted by his family’s cruel past, his fear that it might resurface making him the gentlest, most sorrowful monster imaginable.

The other actors are fine, but this is Price’s picture through and through and I think it’s my favorite performance I’ve seen from him yet. His Roderick is surely the villain of the piece, but he plays the part without a single drop of malice. Rather, suffused with warmth, tenderness, and deep resignation, he is a fully tragic figure – acting only out of his sense of ‘the good,’ making the terrible decisions he alone understands that he must make, following his sense of duty, of morality, to commit the most heinous acts, taking that sin on his shoulders because he must. Just beautiful. And so softly played.

One element of that softness is rooted in his condition, such that he cannot abide loud noises (and compared to him, Philip really seems to be shouting throughout the film – such an irritating, earnest young lover), and the delicacy with which he approaches every moment is exquisite –it is as if every second of lived experience is painful to him. But beyond the simple sensory tortures he must endure, every action and every emotion is handled with a similarly light touch. This is a very dramatic story, but Price plays it all so small, so richly but sincerely. There is no melodrama in his work – no scenery is chewed. And the result is just magnetic whenever he speaks and I lean in to catch each small inflection.

This surfaces in heartbreaking little moments, such as an interchange between Roderick and Philip viewing Madeline in her coffin before she is interred:

-At least she has found peace now.
-Has she?
-Why do you say that?
-Because I do not believe that for the Ushers there is peace hereafter.
-Is there no END to your HORRORS?
-No. None whatever… for they are not mine alone. Mere passage from the flesh cannot undo centuries of evil. There can be no peace without penalty.

If I had just read the script, I would have imagined something so different from the quiet, soft, deeply, deeply sad line readings that Price delivers here. I might expect emotions that rage like the storm incessantly buffeting his aging homestead, but his choice is so much more effective.

In the end, before the house and the family line fall to fire and are swallowed by the blackened land, Philip learns that Madeline is not yet dead and races to the cellar to free her from her tomb, and as he descends, Roderick calls after him so quietly, so defeated, “No, don’t go down there. Let her die.” And in this moment, this monstrous figure, this abusive older sibling, this dangerously crazy man, just breaks your heart. What a picture…

Pit and the Pendulum (1961)

As I continue my journey through Corman’s adaptations of Poe’s stories, I think this next entry offers a good opportunity to discuss these films as ‘adaptations.’ Also penned by Matheson, Pit and the Pendulum takes as its starting point the famous Edgar Allan Poe tale in which a man is tortured by the Spanish Inquisition, held in a chamber with a great pit in the center and a bladed pendulum swinging above. It is an effective and exciting story, painting a rich sensory picture of the terrifying ordeal, but it’s quite short. We never really learn why he’s being tortured thus, so much as we just go on the ride of his terror. Now, this “adaptation” does feature a climactic scene in which there is, in fact, a bladed pendulum swinging above a great pit – in the last ten minutes of the movie. The seventy minutes before that are entirely the work of Matheson and Corman, and while the tale does revolve around Poe-esque elements of guilt (familial and personal), premature burial, mystery, and madness, it is really its own thing (this is generally true of all their “adaptations”). I understand Poe was a commercial draw, but literary purists should probably stay away from these films. These days “fan culture” can be so critical of any departures from source materials (especially if, heavens forbid, you make a formerly white character black) – well, anyone griping on the internet about the new iteration of their favorite work from the eighties should probably be forced to listen to a Poe fan in the sixties detail the indignities they endured and they’ll find that they don’t have it so bad.

That said, this movie was an absolute blast! Whereas the first film was slow and evenly paced, depending so utterly on the strength of Price’s central performance, this is a pretty quick moving mystery that really engaged me in unraveling its threads and guessing after the culprit before building to a dramatic, spectacular climax (pit, pendulum, etc.) and closing on a wicked final laugh.

In short, a young man, Francis Barnard, travels to a Spanish castle to learn how his dear sister, Elizabeth (Barbara Steele, from the great Bava film, Black Sunday), had recently died there. Nicholas Medina (Price), her widower husband, is clearly still distraught at her death, but is also a shifty character, caught in lie after lie as he tries to cover the shameful family secret that he believes led to her demise. Concurrently, he is being haunted by her apparition, rooted in his suspicion that he may have inadvertently interred her before she was actually fully dead. A mystery ensues as Francis; Medina’s sister, Catherine; and Medina’s closest friend, Doctor Leon, uncover secret passageways, dig up the buried past, and try to determine who or what is behind the odd goings on which are slowly but surely disintegrating Medina’s mind, his sanity devoured by guilt and loss.

I don’t want to go into detail as I really did enjoy the mystery of it all, but it results in a satisfying revelation which catapults us into delightfully over-the-top territory in the final sequence, both in terms of a great horror set piece and the leaps of character that Price gets to take.

In a way, it is as if he plays two characters. The first is the pitiful, broken Nicholas Medina, crushed by the loss of his beautiful young wife, tormented by what he considers to be his own responsibility for her expiration, and haunted by a dark, shameful family secret which has scarred him since childhood. Then, late in the film, he (sort of) becomes Sebastian Medina, Nicholas’s cruel father who maintained a torture chamber in the cellar and reveled there in unhinged feats of sadism and mechanical engineering. The wild swing between the two poles of character, from Nicholas’s soft, fearful sorrow to Sebastian’s maniacal, evil vengeance is a treat to behold and is surely worth the Price of admission (that was terrible – sorry). Seriously, it is tons of fun – less nuanced perhaps than the performance in Usher, but no less captivating.

But in this case, that performance exists in the context of a truly entertaining, wild film, full of betrayal, murder, torture, and a more confident and experimental style of filmmaking than had been on display in House of Usher. Corman’s use of color and camera movement, as well as the modern, unsettling score, all tap into a feeling of something beyond mere realism. This still feels like a work of a bygone era (especially with its early gestures towards psychedelia), refined in spite of its low budget and preoccupation with the macabre, but it is easier to see how this could be a hit with its target audience: perverse, playful, and well-paced as it is (and a tidy 80 minutes, no less).  

Masque of the Red Death (1964)

The most artistically ambitious of the three I’m considering today, this film, the seventh entry in the Poe cycle, was a (comparatively) larger budgeted piece and less of a commercial success. That’s not too surprising as, for all that it is a striking, intriguing, visually stunning film that makes bold moves and is full of character and story, it feels less commercial – it is more theatrical, having traveled further afield from naturalism, and at times, even contemplative.

In his most villainous turn out of these three, Price plays Prince Prospero, a sadistic and explicitly Satanic nobleman in medieval Italy during a time of plague. He is introduced laying waste to one of his own villages, burning the place to the ground like a wealthy jerk lighting his cigar with a roll of hundred dollar bills to show just how much he doesn’t care about money. Along the way, he collects Francesca, an innocent peasant girl, taking her back to his castle for the pleasure of corrupting her and turning her from her simple, pure faith. Soon after, he learns of the spreading ‘red death’ and along with a collection of favored nobles, locks himself in to revel in decadence and debauchery until the threat beyond has passed.

His court is a wild, ridiculous, cruel place (or at least it is intended to be – some bits, such as when Prospero orders his courtiers to play animals, are meant to feel degrading, but feel pretty tame through modern eyes – but still, it is easy to see the root of characters like Game of Thrones’s King Joffrey in Price’s fickle, affably evil performance). Much of the film concerns Francesca navigating this wicked world, both threatened and tempted by its sinfulness. Along the way, we also meet a dwarf jester out for revenge (taken from another Poe tale, Hop Frog) and Prospero’s wife Juliana, who, threatened by the young girl’s presence, seeks to complete her initiation into the Satanic cult, thus securing her position and favor. By the end, as in Poe’s story (which is considerably shorter than this post), the plague gets in during a masquerade ball, and all of Prospero’s power, wealth and Satanic dealings can do nothing to protect him or his guests from the bloody disease.

These characters are all given a lot of story along the way, and the court feels fully realized, but at the end of the day, Prospero’s tale is really the heart of the film and it is a simple one. Everything else feels more than a bit peripheral. His is an interesting study – as, though the character is openly “evil,” Price often takes a gentle, warm approach, making some of his whimsical cruelty more chilling for how ‘normal’ it feels. Prospero has come to great power in a world of meaningless death and brutality. He is no more barbarous than the world around him – he is simply more powerful – he’s just better at it. And always charming and genteel, Price never needs to twirl a mustache to communicate the depths of his nihilistic inhumanity.

I was really struck by the Satanic element. An addition to the Poe story, I found it fascinating that it is never really demonized or punished. In the end, death reigns supreme and any deals Prospero has made cannot spare him, but god never shows up. Prospero, his wife, and his guests never seem judged by the film for choosing to give obeisance to the Devil. We abjure the ugliness of his monstrous sadism, but I don’t feel that Corman really wants us to recoil at Prospero taking Francesca’s cross from her and trying to cure her of her pointless peasant’s faith. In the end, he is castigated for hubris, but the devil worship just seems a natural element of this world, part and parcel with Price’s warm, genial portrayal of villainy.

And as mentioned above, this is a visually beautiful film, rich in color scheme and cinematography (by Nicolas Roeg of Don’t Look Now, The Man Who Fell to Earth, and The Witches). A classic element from the original text is Prospero’s series of rooms, each in a different color, with a different feeling, and they just pop on film so vividly, as do all visual elements of the sets and costumes and lighting. From a genuinely spooky scene of Francesca in her room, terrified of the wind and shadows and distant Satanic chanting, to surreal portents of doom in the final black room, to the village burning to the ground, to the titular masque, with its masked dancers lithely filling these monochrome chambers with bawdy lasciviousness, this whole film is such a vibrant, sumptuous space in which to dwell – as well it should be.

But while I loved this artistic splendor, I can see how it might not have performed as well with its intended audience. For example, the final sequence of the Red Death’s appearance at the masquerade ball plays out with a kind of beautiful artifice, theatrical and balletic as the partygoers begin to bleed through their skin but never play the horror of the moment. They dance silently, elegantly, as a desperate Prospero tries to escape his doom, delivered by a crimson apparition that wears his own visage. It is poetic and it lands thematically – his great power and privilege rendered so powerless, even pathetic, against the inevitable. But it’s not scary, or particularly exciting. The climax of this lavish B-picture is pure arthouse. I love it for its daring, artsy choices, but I could see how it wouldn’t be for everyone.

—

I think the artful nature of particularly this last picture highlights another aspect of Corman’s CV. Sure, he has directed and produced loads of low-budget exploitation features, but he was also the American distributor of Fellini, Berman, Truffaut, and Kurosawa. There is an artistic temperament there, and I think these three films reveal a tension between the low budget impresario of melodramatic thrill-seeking fare and the artist who found that he had more freedom to create interesting work by remaining in the world of independent genre cinema rather than subsuming his creativity to a Hollywood machine that evens everything out, making it all more the same, more palatable for the widest possible audience.

I think in this work, Vincent Price was a perfect collaborator. Throughout these three films (and I’m assuming this to be true in the other four Poe flicks Price did with Corman), as well as all of the work I’ve seen from him so far, he consistently brings a balance between artful class and high melodrama, maintaining a tension between a campy wickedness and a genuine, authentic warmth and groundedness. The way he can portray such an over-the-top villain as Prospero while leaning into an affect of tender gentleness resonates with this film’s presentation of a perverse, thrilling horror show while ruminating in nigh meditative, if also nihilistic, manner on the futility of wealth and power and the passing nature of life’s trials and tribulations.