Skip to main content

That’s what they call the devil’s skin.

The Blood on Satan’s Claw
aka Satan’s Skin
(1971)

(SPOILERS) One of the era’s great lurid horror titles – its unhinged company also includes Blood Beast Terror, Captain Kronos: Vampire Hunter and the astonishing Zoltan, Hound of DraculaThe Blood on Satan’s Claw, perhaps surprisingly, stands the test of time better than many of its stablemates. It relies less on by-then-established Hammer-esque staples than it on an atmospheric exploration of a community disintegrating from within, not a million miles from The Crucible in malignancy. Rather different in approach, however. Here, the surface is ripped away to reveal an unnerving patch of hairy skin beneath.

Doctor: Ah, there are so many sick and unknown maladies in these parts, I fear a general plague. 

This setting is a rural eighteenth century idyll. Well, drab overcast April. The Blood on Satan’s Claw has often been included in the “Folk Horror” sub-category. The most prolific examples being The Wicker Man and The Witchfinder General (I’ve never been a big fan of the latter) as well as Tam Lin, the works of Nigel Kneale, and The Owl Service and Penda’s Fen. Subsequent decades have seen The Company of Wolves, The Witch and Midsommar join the ranks. Robert Wynne-Simmons wrote the screenplay and Piers Haggard directed (latterly mostly in television, including for Kneale’s The Quatermass Conclusion). Perhaps because Haggard wasn’t the horror guy – and this was only his second feature – there is less emphasis on gore or cheap shock tactics, while Wynne-Simmons comes up with a curiously distinctive angle for ridding the town of its plague of devilry

Doctor: We have much to learn. I will open a vein, and perhaps the humour will pass out.

As presented, the source of the village’s malaise is a strange skull unearthed by local yokel Ralph (Barry Andrews) while ploughing a field. A skull with a living eye! Ralph visits the sceptical judge (Patrick Wymark), insisting “It weren’t human, sir” and “It were more like some fiend”. In no time at all, unwholesome events are afoot. Peter (Simon Williams) brings home fiancé Rosalind (Tamara Ustinov, Peter’s daughter). She’s the farmer’s daughter and so well beneath his station. Staying the night, she goes mad in the attic and scratches Peter’s Aunt Isobel Banham (Avice Landone), who subsequently takes off, never to be seen again. Later Peter, believing himself strangled by a hairy demon fiend, cuts off his own hand.

Which is as nothing compared to the machinations of the local youth (although there are conspicuously several pension-age persons in their cult). Akin to a particularly diabolical Lord of the Flies – Wynee-Simmons was tellingly influenced by both the Manson Family and the Mary Bell child murders – ringleader Angel Blake (Linda Hayden) coordinates a campaign of murder, rape and slander while inept Squire Middleton (James Hayter) looks entirely in the wrong direction.

Judge: But you must have patience. Even while people die. Only thus can the whole evil be destroyed. You must let it grow.

Throughout all this, the judge has made himself scarce. He has, however, undergone an adjustment in his views after reading a book on witchcraft. He duly returns when Angel’s plan to reconstitute the demon is at its peak, gratuitously running through the beast. Wynne-Simmons had it that the judge represented “dogged enlightenment” whereby the darkness must be brought into the open to banish it: “When it becomes a fully-fledged cult, it will show itself”. It’s an interesting strategy. Indeed, QAnoners have come up with much the same explanation for global events escalating in severity, whereby the public must be able to recognise the extent of the evil before it is overthrown (the only flaw with this, well one of the numerous flaws with it, is that it proceeds on the basis the public do wake up). That, along with the false accusation of the Reverend – the willingness to believe the victim immediately, dispensing with due process – makes the various themes in The Blood on Satan’s Claw quite topical.

It’s also interesting that Wynne-Simmons leaves the cause and effect of the devilry vague. We assume the skull is the remnants of Behemoth’s demonic force personified, but how, why and when this occurred is unknown. The actions it instigates in the village are intended to lead to its eventual reincarnation, but the picture is more effective when it is less tangible. The emphasis on the destruction of the psyche in the early stages, in tandem with the body, is especially effective. Rosalind’s mental disintegration after being locked in the attic all night is witchily disturbing, most of all the clawed had extending from her robe (the demon effects, wisely limited, are contrastingly quite risible, at their nadir when a hairy gorilla arm breaks through the floorboards in search of Peter; this sequence is only saved by the outright horror of Peter severing his own hand).

Reverend Fallowfield: There is growing amongst you all, an insolent ungodliness, which I will not tolerate!

The temptation of Reverend Fallowfield (Anthony Ainley, sporting one of his better wigs) is also effective, and precedes the similar treatment of virginal Edward Woodward in The Wicker Man two years later. Elsewhere, the cult’s influence is decidedly more visceral, both in the murder of Mark (Robin Davies) and the especially grim rape and murder of Cathy (Wendy Padbury, recently ex- of Zoe in Doctor Who). Indeed, there are some truly obnoxious oiks here. The suggestion is that the malignant influence will consume all once it is pervading the village, hence good guy Ralph discovering he has also been cursed with the hairy skin (once flayed, the pieces from each surrogate carrier will reconstitute the demon’s physical form).

Local Idiot: We know, if she don’t sink, she be one.
Ralph: If she sink, you done 'er murder.

The Blood on Satan’s Claw is largely unalleviated by humour or levity. Ralph’s response of to the witch dunking of Margaret (Some Mothers Do ’Ave Em’s Michele Dotrice) is quite dry, as is the report on the missing Aunt Isobel (“She must have a constitution of an ox”). It’s notable too that, strong as Hayden is as lead antagonist, the movie lacks an accomplished diabolical figurehead per Christopher Lee in The Wicker Man. This does rather serve to underline the lack of cosiness in the construction, though.

Wymark is solid in his final English language film role. Andrews appears cursed with a ridiculous wig, but that’s until you realise it’s his actual ridiculous hair. Hayden was apparently under contract to appear, and at seventeen already had a history (controversially) of disrobing for movies; she’d go on to several appearances in the Confessions… series.

Judge: I am ready to return. But understand, I shall use undreamed-of measures, to conquer the evil.

Kim Newman suggested The Blood on Satan’s Clawmarked out an area of intergenerational tension that would become central to the American horror film of the 1970s”. However, it doesn’t explicitly position itself in such an oppositional manner. The malign influence is designed to undermine the traditional structures, yet it is equally inclined to see the youth turn upon themselves. As such, it is more characteristic of brainwashing and exclusivity (Margaret is rejected by Angel when the mark of the beast is shorn from her body). It’s in the collapse of the community that The Blood on Satan’s Claw at its strongest, and the rapidity with which this can occur. A situation that leaves all concerned bereft until a leader is invited, in whatever form, to take charge.

 


Popular posts from this blog

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

If this were a hoax, would we have six dead men up on that mountain?

The X-Files 4.24: Gethsemane   Season Four is undoubtedly the point at which the duff arc episodes begin to amass, encroaching upon the decent ones for dominance. Fortunately, however, the season finale is a considerable improvement’s on Three’s, even if it’s a long way from the cliffhanger high of 2.25: Anasazi .

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

Captain, he who walks in fire will burn his feet.

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen returns to the kind of unadulterated fantasy material that made Jason and the Argonauts such a success – swords & stop motion, if you like. In between, there were a couple of less successful efforts, HG Wells adaptation First Men in the Moon and The Valley of the Gwangi (which I considered the best thing ever as a kid: dinosaur walks into a cowboy movie). Harryhausen’s special-effects supremacy – in a for-hire capacity – had also been consummately eclipsed by Raquel Welch’s fur bikini in One Million Years B.C . The Golden Voyage of Sinbad follows the expected Dynamation template – blank-slate hero, memorable creatures, McGuffin quest – but in its considerable favour, it also boasts a villainous performance by nobody-at-the-time, on-the-cusp-of-greatness Tom Baker.

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

Out of my way, you lubberly oaf, or I’ll slit your gullet and shove it down your gizzard!

The Princess and the Pirate (1944) (SPOILERS) As I suggested when revisiting The Lemon Drop Kid , you’re unlikely to find many confessing to liking Bob Hope movies these days. Even Chevy Chase gets higher approval ratings. If asked to attest to the excruciating stand-up comedy Hope, the presenter and host, I doubt even diehards would proffer an endorsement. Probably even fewer would admit to having a hankering for Hope, were they aware of, or further still gave credence to, alleged MKUltra activities. But the movie comedy Hope, the fourth-wall breaking, Road -travelling quipster-coward of (loosely) 1939-1952? That Hope’s a funny guy, mostly, and many of his movies during that period are hugely inventive, creative comedies that are too easily dismissed under the “Bob Hope sucks” banner. The Princess and the Pirate is one of them.

My hands hurt from galloping.

Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) (SPOILERS) Say what you like about the 2016 reboot, at least it wasn’t labouring under the illusion it was an Amblin movie. Ghostbusters 3.5 features the odd laugh, but it isn’t funny, and it most definitely isn’t scary. It is, however, shamelessly nostalgic for, and reverential towards, the original(s), which appears to have granted it a free pass in fan circles. It didn’t deserve one.

I think it’s wonderful the way things are changing.

Driving Miss Daisy (1989) (SPOILERS) The meticulous slightness of Driving Miss Daisy is precisely the reason it proved so lauded, and also why it presented a prime Best Picture pick: a feel-good, social-conscience-led flick for audiences who might not normally spare your standard Hollywood dross a glance. One for those who appreciate the typical Judi Dench feature, basically. While I’m hesitant to get behind anything Spike Lee, as Hollywood’s self-appointed race-relations arbiter, spouts, this was a year when he actually did deliver the goods, a genuinely decent movie – definitely a rarity for Lee – addressing the issues head-on that Driving Miss Daisy approaches in softly-softly fashion, reversing gingerly towards with the brake lights on. That doesn’t necessarily mean Do the Right Thing ought to have won Best Picture (or even that it should have been nominated for the same), but it does go to emphasise the Oscars’ tendency towards the self-congratulatory rather than the provocat

I’ve heard the dancing’s amazing, but the music sucks.

Tick, Tick… Boom! (2021) (SPOILERS) At one point in Tick, Tick… Boom! – which really ought to have been the title of an early ’90s Steven Seagal vehicle – Andrew Garfield’s Jonathan Larson is given some sage advice on how to find success in his chosen field: “ On the next, maybe try writing about what you know ”. Unfortunately, the very autobiographical, very-meta result – I’m only surprised the musical doesn’t end with Larson finishing writing this musical, in which he is finishing writing his musical, in which he is finishing writing his musical… – takes that acutely literally.

Who gave you the crusade franchise? Tell me that.

The Star Chamber (1983) (SPOILERS) Peter Hyams’ conspiracy thriller might simply have offered sauce too weak to satisfy, reining in the vast machinations of an all-powerful hidden government found commonly during ’70s fare and substituting it with a more ’80s brand that failed to include that decade’s requisite facile resolution. There’s a good enough idea here – instead of Charles Bronson, it’s the upper echelons of the legal system resorting to vigilante justice – but The Star Chamber suffers from a failure of nerve, repenting its premise just as it’s about to dig into the ramifications.