Skip to main content

The Old Ones are coming back, and I’m going to let them through.

The Dunwich Horror
(1970)

H.P. Lovecraft purists might understandably object to the liberties taken by this cheapie Roger Corman adaptation, and no one is going to reach the end credits utterly unnerved, but it isn’t a complete wash-out. As clumsy as the direction and storytelling often are, The Dunwich Horror is anchored by a smoothly creepy performance from one Dean Stockwell. Appropriately, he sports a diabolical perm to match his dark dealings.


Stockwell is Wilbur Whateley, a “student of the occult” who wishes to “borrow” a rare copy of the Necronomicon belonging to Dr Armitage (Ed Begley, in his last film role). His plan is to unlock the gates to another dimension, where the Old Ones reside. Nancy (Sandra Dee), a student of Armitage, falls under Whateley’s spell and returns with him to his family pile in the town of Dunwich. She learns of the family’s dark past, including the lynching of Wilbur’s great grandfather for beliefs Wilbur also espouses. Wilbur’s mother resides in the local asylum (“It’s hard to believe she’s only 45 years old”) and something lurks upstairs behind lock and key. And just what does Wilbur have planned for Nancy? Not romance, that’s for sure.


Corman’s American International Pictures had long since left behind the grudging respect garnered by his Edgar Allan Poe adaptations. At the time The Dunwich Horror was released, AIP’s repertoire had extended to counterculture exploitation romps like The Trip and Psych-Out. Corman had dabbled in Lovecraft before, 1965’s Die, Monster, Die! (if nothing else, a more arresting title than that of the original story, The Colour Out of Space). That picture received criticism from Lovercraftites that it was attempting to channel Corman’s Poe pictures rather than render the necrotic spirit of Lovecraft (Corman being so cheerfully rip-off minded, this is probable rather than possible). Certainly, while I haven’t seen Monster, Dunwich’s cinematography immediately evokes the lurid decay of the Corman Poe movies. 


Daniel Haller directed both these Lovecrafts, suggesting Corman wanted something tonally similar unless he was just being loyal. Haller was a set designer on the Poe adaptations and Monster was his first directing gig, followed by a couple of AIP motorcycle pictures.  He didn’t take long to settle into TV work, though, subsequently tackling the likes of Kojak, Battlestar Galactica, The Fall Guy and Knight Rider (and Manimal, lets not forget Manimal). He doesn’t bring much to Dunwich, short of the bleeding obvious; this is a plodding affair, and what atmosphere there is comes from the production design rather than the staging and editing (an unobtrusive owl sits quietly on the veranda at the Dunwich residence, unmentioned; the glass “ornaments” Wilbur communicates with are suitably odd). The climactic events go on an on without building up to anything very exciting, and then the picture just sort of peters out with an obligatory nod to Rosemary’s Baby. 


While Dunwich employs prolific sound effects, the creature side is sorely lacking. Haller lacks the imagination to lift the unseen horror to a level exerting any kind of resonance or unease. There's a thing in a cupboard than can magic off Dee's girlfriend's (Donna Baccala’s) clothes before doing unspeakable things to her. Dee has a triptastic dream resembling a bad day at Glastonbury Festival. Even an (much cheaper) episode of Doctor Who (Image of the Fendahl, which has certain Lovecraftian elements) is able to deliver more lurking menace (and a rubber monster!)


The camera effects aren’t especially inspired, although Sam Raimi and friends must surely have seen and loved the movie; there’s the point-of-view of the “thing” in the woods at the end, surely an influence on Evil Dead. And with an opening line like "And now, if you would take the Necronomicon and return it to the library" one almost expects Bruce Campbell to enter screen left at any moment. There’s a matte shot temple on the cliffs that looks great (The Devil’s Hop Yard) but on the debit side the old age make-up is atrocious (in particular, Lloyd Bochner’s local doctor; his presence in this state is mystifying until all becomes clear during a flashback scene).


This kind of picture needs a strong lead to keep the most attentive viewer from drifting off. Fortunately Stockwell delivers with his special moustache, wicked sideburns, hypno-eyes and quietly persuasive tones. A former child actor who was among the the Corman thing ranks with Nicholson and Hopper (well, those two had just moved on) by this point, Stockwell might be better compared to Roddy McDowall in terms of career (another former child star).  Both have made their main mark in TV, with Stockwell’s greatest claim to fame being as the interesting one in Quantum Leap. But since the ‘80s he has also made in-roads with smallish but memorable supporting roles in a broad church of movies, working with everyone from David Lynch to Wim Wenders to Jonathan Demme. One thing that is rare on his CV post-Corman is that of movie lead, so Dunwich should be savoured in that regard (especially as he isn’t playing a biker or a werewolf).  Stockwell also appeared in the Begley role in a (roundly slated) 2009 TV version.


As for Stockwell’s co-stars, this appears to have been an attempt by Sandra Dee to muss up her squeaky clean image. Unfortunately, it’s really only rather mild in that regard. The closest she gets to provoking a frisson is when Wilbur wedges the Necronomicon between Nancy’s legs. Sam Jaffe is amusingly fraught as the elderly Whateley. He even gets to deliver the immortal “Now get orf moy land”. Begley is more the mad minister than a man of science, but at least he has presence.


One aspect deserving unqualified praise is the opening titles. Sandy Dvore’s arresting design has a welcome sense of humour, and plays as if Saul Bass was set loose doing a full-on animation. Les Baxter’s score, which becomes annoyingly intrusive during the film itself, is the perfect accompaniment.


It isn’t only Haller who should shoulder the blame for The Dunwich Horror not being all that. Where it falls down is in making so little of the concept. There’s no doubt the original story would have needed reworking to succeed on screen but, aside from the reimagining of Wilbur, most of the choices are rather lacking. There’s the occasional great scene; Stockwell attempting to bury his unconsecrated grandfather on church ground, and being met by a storm of angry townsfolk, is great. There’s also a kind of ramshackle post-Manson '70s vibe to the picture that is a curiously good fit for Lovecraft. But as a whole this never gets under the skin, which is surely the key to a good H.P. Altogether now "Yog-Sothoth…"


***



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?