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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 .

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.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

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 ?

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for