Skip to main content

It ought to be burned to the ground and sowed with salt.

The Haunting
(1963)

(SPOILERS) Is it bad that, as far as the haunted house subgenre goes, I prefer The Legend of Hell House to Robert Wise’s very respectable, mature adaptation of Shirley Jackson’s then-recent novel? Both are based on a team of investigators setting up shop in a famously haunted abode – Nigel Kneale’s The Stone Tape does something similar – but John Hough’s film of Richard Matheson’s novel simply wants to have unapologetic fun with the premise. The Haunting goes for a less tangible vibe – night and day compared to the recent Netflix incarnation – but I’m not sure it quite pulls it off.

It may be this element that Pauline Kael recognised when she recounted how a section of the audience she saw the film with “wasn’t merely bored, it was hostile – as if the movie, by assuming interests they didn’t have, made them feel resentful or inferior… In their terms they were cheated: nothing happened”. That ambiguity isn’t a problem with either of the other versions of the source material, of course. On the other hand, neither are nearly as good as Wise’s picture.

Nelson Gidding originally fashioned his adaptation in very much a metaphorical fashion; everything that transpires is within the mind of Eleanor (Julie Harris), who is experiencing a nervous breakdown, and those she encounters and the phenomena she experiences are reflections of the institution (Richard Johnson’s Dr Markway becomes her shrink). He backpedalled on this when Jackson told him the novel wasn’t intended to be read that way, although it’s still easy to seem much of that interiority in the character of Eleanor, and the subjective gaze she’s given throughout.

Indeed, it’s surely no coincidence that MCU-hating Martin Scorsese, who vouched for the film as his all-time favourite horror, should have been attracted to schlocky detective noir disappointment Shutter Island, which operates on exactly that basis (but to the point of inanity). There’s much in The Haunting that’s masterfully executed: Claire Bloom’s barely unstated lesbian Theo (“The world’s full of unnatural things. Nature’s mistakes, they’re called. You, for instance”), adopting a playful manner towards the very literal, open Eleanor; Johnson’s Markway is your definitive classic cool-customer unflustered investigator (you watch and wonder why he didn’t have a long career as a leading man); Wise’s approach to the house is winningly perverse, making it bright, opulent and well-lit, rather than sinister, dusty and moody. Sure, there are Dutch angles and fish-eye lens, but tonally he’s more on board with the distanced Markway than diving into the first-person narrator perspective of Eleanor.

On that level, I’m inclined towards Russell Evans’ assumption that “few people truly find the film shocking or disturbing”. If Spielberg told Wise it was the scariest film ever made, he was simply blowing smoke up his ass. Throughout this visit to The Haunting, I was in the mind of how much more effective and genuinely unsettling Jack Clayton’s The Innocents, made two years earlier, is. A film that also functions along a divide between its protagonist’s perception of the real and imagined, one hinging on their sexual repression. I think, if The Haunting comes up short in comparison, it’s because Gidding’s screenplay bashes us round the head with Eleanor’s neurosis to the point that she begins to become tiresome, rather than someone we’re sympathetic towards. On one level, Harris’ performance is supremely compelling, but it’s also overpowering, cumulatively testing our patience (akin to Lambert being the main character in Alien, rather than Ripley).

The early scenes of Eleanor breaking away from an oppressive family put us on her side, and her car journey interior monologue is suggestive of Marion Crane in Psycho, but the twist is that she’s her own Norman Bates, that her sibling’s apparent berating and character assassination is really protecting her fragile mental state.

That there are spooky goings-on in the house as experienced by others (spectral hounds, unaccounted for noises and movements) might be seen as relating to Eleanor’s history of poltergeist phenomena as much as being engineered by Hill House (“It was an evil house from the beginning, a house that was born bad”). And whatever happens to Mrs Markway (Lois Maxwell), evidently turning up at the house because she suspects hubby of inappropriate behaviour in the name of scientific investigation, could simply reflect Markway’s psychology-tinged warning to Luke (Russ Tamblyn) earlier: “A closed mind is the worst defence against the supernatural”. Yet it’s notable that the backdrop of the house allows for the characters’ underlying sexual psychodramas to play out, except – ironically – for presumably the youngest and so most “piqued” (Luke).

One can see here where Mike Flanagan might have got his idea for the house as (SPOILER) a comforting presence for a distressed soul. Even though there’s never any characterisation or presentation of spooks, Eleanor’s conviction that “I’m the one who’s supposed to stay here” resolves itself with her car wreck and the conclusion that “It was what she wanted. She had no place else to go. The house belongs to her now too”. Which you wouldn’t call upbeat, exactly, but certainly as ambiguous as the rest of the picture.

Wise shot the film in the UK, even though it’s set in New England, and with Johnson’s lead and support from Valentine Dyall and Rosalie Crutchley as the accent-sporting housekeepers, it’s easy to forget it’s supposed to be set in the States. At times too, it’s easy to forget it’s supposed to be a horror film. I suspect this lack of emphasis on “cheap” tactics is part of the reason it’s held in such esteem. But as good as it is, it might have been even better if the ambiguity of the supernatural had extended to the presentation of Eleanor’s unsettled mental state. 


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism

Now listen, I don’t give diddley shit about Jews and Nazis.

  The Boys from Brazil (1978) (SPOILERS) Nazis, Nazis everywhere! The Boys from Brazil has one distinct advantage over its fascist-antagonist predecessor Marathon Man ; it has no delusions that it is anything other than garish, crass pulp fiction. John Schlesinger attempted to dress his Dustin Hoffman-starrer up with an art-house veneer and in so doing succeeded in emphasising how ridiculous it was in the wrong way. On the other hand, Schlesinger at least brought a demonstrable skill set to the table. For all its faults, Marathon Man moves , and is highly entertaining. The Boys from Brazil is hampered by Franklin J Schaffner’s sluggish literalism. Where that was fine for an Oscar-strewn biopic ( Patton ), or keeping one foot on the ground with material that might easily have induced derision ( Planet of the Apes ), here the eccentric-but-catchy conceit ensures The Boys from Brazil veers unfavourably into the territory of farce played straight.

Yeah, it’s just, why would we wannabe be X-Men?

The New Mutants (2020) (SPOILERS) I feel a little sorry for The New Mutants . It’s far from a great movie, but Josh Boone at least has a clear vision for that far-from-great movie. Its major problem is that it’s so overwhelmingly familiar and derivative. For an X-Men movie, it’s a different spin, but in all other respects it’s wearisomely old hat.

I can always tell the buttered side from the dry.

The Molly Maguires (1970) (SPOILERS) The undercover cop is a dramatic evergreen, but it typically finds him infiltrating a mob organisation ( Donnie Brasco , The Departed ). Which means that, whatever rumblings of snitch-iness, concomitant paranoia and feelings of betrayal there may be, the lines are nevertheless drawn quite clearly on the criminality front. The Molly Maguires at least ostensibly finds its protagonist infiltrating an Irish secret society out to bring justice for the workers. However, where violence is concerned, there’s rarely room for moral high ground. It’s an interesting picture, but one ultimately more enraptured by soaking in its grey-area stew than driven storytelling.

Never underestimate the wiles of a crooked European state.

The Mouse on the Moon (1963) (SPOILERS) Amiable sequel to an amiably underpowered original. And that, despite the presence of frequent powerhouse Peter Sellers in three roles. This time, he’s conspicuously absent and replaced actually or effectively by Margaret Rutherford, Ron Moody and Bernard Cribbins. All of whom are absolutely funny, but the real pep that makes The Mouse on the Moon an improvement on The Mouse that Roared is a frequently sharp-ish Michael Pertwee screenplay and a more energetic approach from director Richard Lester (making his feature debut-ish, if you choose to discount jazz festival performer parade It’s Trad, Dad! )

Yes, exactly so. I’m a humbug.

The Wizard of Oz (1939) (SPOILERS) There are undoubtedly some bullet-proof movies, such is their lauded reputation. The Wizard of Oz will remain a classic no matter how many people – and I’m sure they are legion – aren’t really all that fussed by it. I’m one of their number. I hadn’t given it my time in forty or more years – barring the odd clip – but with all the things I’ve heard suggested since, from MKUltra allusions to Pink Floyd timing The Dark Side of the Moon to it, to the Mandela Effect, I decided it was ripe for a reappraisal. Unfortunately, the experience proved less than revelatory in any way, shape or form. Although, it does suggest Sam Raimi might have been advised to add a few songs, a spot of camp and a scare or two, had he seriously wished to stand a chance of treading in venerated L Frank Baum cinematic territory with Oz the Great and Powerful.

It’s always open season on princesses!

Roman Holiday (1953) (SPOILERS) If only every Disney princess movie were this good. Of course, Roman Holiday lacks the prerequisite happily ever after. But then again, neither could it be said to end on an entirely downbeat note (that the mooted sequel never happened would be unthinkable today). William Wyler’s movie is hugely charming. Audrey Hepburn is utterly enchanting. The Rome scenery is perfectly romantic. And – now this is a surprise – Gregory Peck is really very likeable, managing to loosen up just enough that you root for these too and their unlikely canoodle.

Dad's wearing a bunch of hotdogs.

White of the Eye (1987) (SPOILERS) It was with increasing irritation that I noted the extras for Arrow’s White of the Eye Blu-ray release continually returning to the idea that Nicolas Roeg somehow “stole” the career that was rightfully Donald Cammell’s through appropriating his stylistic innovations and taking all the credit for Performance . And that the arrival of White of the Eye , after Demon Seed was so compromised by meddlesome MGM, suddenly shone a light on Cammell as the true innovator behind Performance and indeed the inspiration for Roeg’s entire schtick. Neither assessment is at all fair. But then, I suspect those making these assertions are coming from the position that White of the Eye is a work of unrecognised genius. Which it is not. Distinctive, memorable, with flashes of brilliance, but also uneven in both production and performance. It’s very much a Cannon movie, for all that it’s a Cannon arthouse movie.

Farewell, dear shithead, farewell.

Highlander II: The Quickening (1991) (SPOILERS) I saw Highlander II: The Quickening at the cinema. Yes, I actually paid money to see one of the worst mainstream sequels ever on the big screen. I didn’t bother investigating the Director’s Cut until now, since the movie struck me as entirely unsalvageable. I was sufficiently disenchanted with all things Highlander that I skipped the TV series and slipshod sequels, eventually catching Christopher Lambert’s last appearance as Connor MacLeod in Highlander: End Game by accident rather than design. But Highlander II ’s on YouTube , and the quality is decent, so maybe the Director’s Cut improve matters and is worth a reappraisal? Not really. It’s still a fundamentally, mystifyingly botched retcon enabling the further adventures of MacLeod, just not quite as transparently shredded in the editing room.

Have you betrayed us? Have you betrayed me?!

Blake's 7 4.13: Blake The best you can hope for the end of a series is that it leaves you wanting more. Blake certainly does that, so much so that I lapped up Tony Attwood’s Afterlife when it came out. I recall his speculation over who survived and who didn’t in his Programme Guide (curious that he thought Tarrant was unlikely to make it and then had him turn up in his continuation). Blake follows the template of previous season finales, piling incident upon incident until it reaches a crescendo.