Monday, 3 July 2017

Lovecraft on Film:
The Dunwich Horror
(Daniel Haller, 1970)


“They walk unseen and foul in lonely places where the Words have been spoken and the Rites howled through at their Seasons. The wind gibbers with Their voices, and the earth mutters with Their consciousness. Kadath in the cold waste hath known Them, and what man knows Kadath? The ice desert of the South and the sunken isles of Ocean hold stones whereupon Their seal is engraven, but who hath seen the deep frozen city or the sealed tower long garlanded with seaweed and barnacles? Great Cthulhu is their cousin, yet he can spy Them only dimly. Ia! Shub-Niggurath! As a foulness shall ye know Them. Their hand is at your throats, yet ye see Them not; and Their habitation is ever one with your guarded threshold.”
- Adbul Alhazred

DR CORY: And you really think young Whateley might believe all of this..?
DR ARMITAGE: The book… the girl… I don’t know what to think!
¬ The Dunwich Horror (1970)

I.

Whilst I don’t get the impression that Daniel Haller exactly set the box office aflame with his H.P. Lovecraft-derived directorial debut Die Monster Die! in 1965, the top brass at American International Pictures nonetheless saw fit to award him another, somewhat higher profile, shot at the prize a few years later.

This decision perhaps reflects the fact that the boom in paperback editions of the Lovecraft’s work had succeeded in making him a far more saleable name by the end of the decade than had been the case when the studio insisted on rebranding The Haunted Palace as a Poe picture back in ’63, but nonetheless, the process that eventually led to ‘The Dunwich Horror’ reaching screens in 1970 was long and convoluted indeed, with numerous cultural currents eventually coalescing into one of the most compellingly weird films AIP ever made.

The movie as it finally emerged is certainly a far cry from what was envisioned when the idea of the adapting ‘The Dunwich Horror’ was first mooted back to the early/mid ‘60s, when a draft script outline – unfeasibly titled ‘Crimson Friday’ – was apparently passed to none other than Mario Bava, with the intention that he would direct, with Christopher Lee and Boris Karloff both signed up to star, in a loose continuation of the success the Italian maestro had already brought to AIP via their U.S. releases of his ‘Black Sunday’ (1960) and ‘Black Sabbath’ (1962).

What happened next is a matter of rumour and conjecture, but we can only assume that the souring of relations between AIP and Bava following the fiasco surrounding the disastrous ‘Dr. Goldfoot & The Girl Bombs’ (1966), combined with Bava’s disinclination to make films outside of Italy and AIP’s simultaneous decision to distance themselves from Italian ventures in order to shift resources to their British operation under Louis M. Heywood, led to this tantalising prospect quietly disappearing over the horizon into oblivion.

(Interviewed shortly after the fact, Lee reported that he had actually seen the provisional script for the ‘Crimson Friday’ project, stating that, whilst he liked the idea, it still needed a great deal of work. He also claimed that “Boris didn’t like it”, which can’t have helped matters.)(1)

Needless to say, the evaporation of this dream project remains one of the great ‘what if’s of horror movie history. Both of Bava’s biographers (Tim Lucas and Troy Howarth) seem to have independently verified that the director was indeed a Lovecraft fan (presumably encountering his work in translation via his life-long readership of pulp SF magazines) and, given the incredible alien vistas he had recently conjured out of thin air on 1965’s ‘Planet of the Vampires’, it is frustrating in the extreme to imagine what Bava might have achieved on a full-blooded, respectably-budgeted Chtulhu Mythos movie, if only he had been given the opportunity – but sadly it was not to be.



After this initial idea fizzled out, the impetus to adapt ‘The Dunwich Horror’ seems, like some appropriately tentacled monstrosity, to have split in two, mutating into separate AIP-affiliated projects on either side of the Atlantic. Lee and Karloff were both retained on the British end, and were eventually joined by Barbara Steele and Michael Gough for a co-production between AIP’s UK wing under Heywood and Tony Tensor’s Tigon Productions.

Along with its top-billed stars, the exultant title of the resulting movie retained at least one word from the treatment for the earlier Bava project, as ‘The Curse of the Crimson Altar’ (shortened to ‘The Crimson Cult’ for US release) limped into cinemas in December 1968 to conspicuously little adulation.

The script for ‘..Crimson Altar’ - presumably an entirely different affair from the one referenced by Lee - is alleged to have started life as an attempt to adapt Lovecraft’s ‘Dreams in the Witch House’, but, by the time it reached the screen, so little of that story remained that this source was no longer even acknowledged in the film’s credits. Which, thankfully, spares me the necessity of derailing this review strand to cover a film that carries a justified reputation as one of the most heinous examples of wasted potential in the entire genre.

By handing what was once mooted as a Mario Bava project to British b-movie workhorse Montgomery Tully, Heywood and Tenser achieved the horror movie equivalent of getting George Formby in to record some vocals because Scott Walker can’t make it to the studio, and – barring perhaps the extraordinary sight of Barbara Steele as a green-painted demon princess being attended to by some sort of horned blacksmith in leather fetish gear in an early dream sequence – ‘..Crimson Altar’ has remained a crushing bore on each of the several occasions I have troubled to watch it over the years.


II.



Back in the states meanwhile, the idea of launching a proper ‘Dunwich Horror’ adaptation was still lurking in the long-term memories of AIP head honchos Sam Arkoff and James Nicholson, and, when a certain other movie about a mother forced to give birth to a demonic child started doing gangbusters at the box office in the summer of ’68, it’s easy to speculate that they suddenly remembered they had a similar property of their own knocking about in a dusty filing cabinet somewhere.

And indeed, the version of ‘The Dunwich Horror’ that made it to the screen in 1970 does play up the ‘Rosemary’s Baby’ angle to a significant extent, expanding on scenes merely implied by Lovecraft to give us a fuller picture of the sorry fate of Lavinia Wheatley, mother of Wilbur and his nameless brother.

One of the few women to play any role whatsoever in a Lovecraft story, in print poor old Lavinia rather bears the brunt of the author’s apparently bottomless disgust at the idea of rural working class ‘degeneracy’, which, combined with what we might well diagnose as a somewhat conflicted attitude toward the fairer sex in general, leads him to variously describe her as “somewhat deformed”, “unattractive”, “sickly”, “twisted”, “feeble-minded”, “misproportioned” and “slatternly”, all within the space of a few pages.

Though her role in Haller’s film is scarcely much larger, Lavinia (played by Cassevetes regular Joanne Moore Jordan) is at least somewhat more sympathetically portrayed. Much in the Rosemary mould, she is an unwitting victim of her deranged father’s sorcerous schemings, consigned to an asylum following the trauma of her twins’ unholy birth (a scene at least partially dramatised in the opening scene and animated title sequence), and left to rot as young Wilbur is raised under the tuition of his grandfather, until Dunwich’s ever-present whippoorwills eventually return to claim her soul.

These scenes are amongst the most effective in the film, adding a touch of genuine gothic poignancy to what is otherwise a fairly way-out concoction of craziness, but, thankfully, there was a hell of a lot more being fed into Haller’s adaptation than a mere desire to emulate of Polanski’s hit, even if that was the impetus that secured its place on the production slate.


Most crucially, if we assume that the Lovecraft name had indeed become a potentially saleable asset during the latter part of the ‘60s, I believe the “light bulb moment” that led to ‘The Dunwich Horror’ becoming such an unusual proposition must have resulted from the film’s producers giving some thought to the question of who exactly was buying it.

Their answer, to not put too fine a point on it, seems to have been HIPPIES.

Whether or not this assumption was a fair one is a discussion liable to take us somewhat beyond the remit of this post, but, let’s just say that the general feeling at the time seems to have been that the Lovecraft paperbacks whose frequently mind-bending artwork was infiltrating shelves across USA and beyond were being embraced by the same turned out (or at least, wishing-to-be-turned-on) readers who were busy propelling Pauwels & Bergier’s ‘The Morning of the Magicians’, J.R.R. Tolkien, Carlos Castaneda and Robert Heinlein’s ‘Stranger in a Strange Land’ up the sales charts, as part of the first wave of the ‘new age’ publishing boom that would reverberate through the 1970s and beyond.

With this clearly in mind, AIP seem to have seen an opportunity to cross-breed two of their more successful production strands, and ‘The Dunwich Horror’ thus became the first – and indeed, the only - real attempt to merge the studio’s line of gothic horror films with the parallel strain of counter-culture informed youth movies that Roger Corman had kicked off for them with ‘The Wild Angels’ in ‘66, retooling their now thoroughly outmoded hot-rod/beach party teen flicks for the psychedelic era with envelope-pushing titles like ‘The Trip’ (1967) and ‘Psych-Out’ (1968).

If the combination of the Cthulhu Mythos, drive-in exploitation and LSD-fuelled pseudo-spirituality sounds like a heady brew, well, so it proved to be, and, for all its missteps and wild tonal uncertainty, historical uniqueness alone ensures that, for viewers attracted by this kind of potent, pop-cultural cross-fertilising hullaballoo, Daniel Haller’s movie does not disappoint.


III.



Whilst Howard Philips Lovecraft was certainly no one’s idea of a psychedelic guru, the sheer strangeness of many of the ideas and images he packed into his stories could actually be seen to jibe quite well with the drug-damaged, day-glo concerns of late ‘60s California, and, though ‘The Dunwich Horror’ is pure-bred American pulp fiction, devoid of the decadent/symbolist influences that informed earlier stories like ‘The Festival’ and ‘The Hound’, it was nonetheless a surprisingly good choice in this respect.

Though it is often pegged as one of the more accessible and eventful of Lovecraft’s core mythos tales, I’ve always felt that ‘The Dunwich Horror’ is also one of his most genuinely unhinged things HPL ever wrote – a furtive, uncouth, heavy-handed and frequently absurd piece of prose that comes about as close as his work ever did to reading like the outpourings of a deranged mind (those interminable ‘Dreamland’ novellas notwithstanding).

Certainly, by the time readers have made it through fifty-odd pages of fevered, random adjective-splattered authorial invective, ranting hillbilly dialect, descriptions of half-yeti, half pineapple miscreants who somehow pass for human beneath oversized clothes and covens of elderly academics yelling alien exorcism catechisms at invisible clouds of gas…. well, they’d be forgiven for feeling as if they’ve been slipped a dose of acid at the best of times, to be honest.

Despite the shift to a present day setting, and despite an ensuing injection of sexuality, easy-living and above all WOMEN into proceedings that would no doubt have horrified Lovecraft beyond words (as indeed it horrified the more humourless segments of his literary fanbase for years to come), much of the strangeness of the original story - in terms of both tone and content - is actually retained by the film adaptation.

To their credit, Haller and his collaborators seem to have realised that horror movies (and audience expectations thereof) were experiencing just as much of a period of flux as every other aspect of American culture at the dawn of the 1970s, and as such, no sop whatsoever is offered to viewers anticipating the familiar, dusty paraphernalia of the Poe/Price pictures.


Whilst ‘The Haunted Palace’ and ‘Die Monster Die!’ were both hesitant to fully embrace the weirder aspects of their subject matter (and The Shuttered Room jettisoned it altogether), ‘The Dunwich Horror’ has no such qualms, sidestepping the cob-webbed gothic hangovers we might have expected of a late ‘60s AIP horror and instead standing proudly as something that at the time was entirely new - the first (and for several decades thereafter, ONLY) full-blooded Cthulhu Mythos movie to reach cinema screens anywhere in the world.

Christian cosmology remains absent throughout, and traditional gothic trapping are never given much of a look-in either, as the quasi-science fictional nature of the Great Old Ones and the lore that surrounds them is vigorously and repeatedly outlined by the film’s characters, with at least some of the pungent dialogue assigned to Dean Stockwell’s Wilbur Whateley and Sam Jaffe’s Old Man Whateley taken directly from the more hair-raising passages of Lovecraft’s story.

A few throw-away details (Wilbur's use of tarot cards, the horned demon figure that appears in Sandy Dvore’s animated credits sequence, the Whateley family sigil that looks like some kind of kitschy Native American design) suggest that not everyone working on the film necessarily understood what they were supposed to be going for, but, when the time comes for some no-holds-barred Lovecraftian horror bits, they certainly go for broke.


With the possible exception of Cry of the Banshee (released the same year), ‘The Dunwich Horror’ is the only one of the ‘60s AIP horror films I can think of which features multiple killings, complete with extraneous characters wondering around to act as victims (another sign of the changing times).

Thus, when Sandra Dee’s character’s ill-fated best friend (played by Donna Baccala) makes the regrettable decision to open the much-ballyhooed locked room in the Whateley house, she is met, not with the moth-eaten werewolf claw or iffy ‘mutant’ make-up we might have expected, but with a veritable riot of flashing, solarised colour, deranged, unearthly synthesizer shrieking and loopy lo-fi monster effects, all cut too fast for us to get any clear picture of what’s actually going on.

Replaying the sequence frame by frame reveals that flailing scraps of carpet, rubber snakes and imitation chicken feet were all potentially in play, and, crude though such inclusions may seem when examined in any detail, it is safe to assume that contemporary cinema audiences would have had no such time to make sense of what they were seeing, and the overall effect is quite startling - as good an attempt to “film the unfilmable” as could be wished of a 1969 film working under obvious budgetary limitations.

In fact, it is difficult to imagine just how bizarre ‘The Dunwich Horror’ must have seemed to an audience coming to the film with no knowledge of Lovecraft’s writing. Many years after I watched it for the first time, it still thrills me more than I should really admit to to hear (sort of) famous actors in a (sort of) Hollywood movie throwing about the dread names of Yog-Sothoth, The Necronomicon and so on, their delivery balanced on a knife edge between baffled camp and deadly seriousness, whilst at the same time a surprisingly effective gigantic, invisible, tentacled creature rampages through the night-haunted New England hills, with Dr Henry Armitage of the Miskatonic and his cohorts in hot pursuit.


IV.

One of the major problems in adapting ‘The Dunwich Horror’ for the screen is the fact that the story essentially has no central character or audience surrogate figure. Like many Lovecraft stories, events are recounted from a distance, as if recounted as part of some cracked, deeply subjective chronicle of local history.

Dr Armitage, who represents the nearest thing the tale offers to a ‘hero’, doesn’t even turn up until the tale’s final act, and even then, the elderly Miskatonic University librarian is closer to a human deus ex machina than a relatable character. Meanwhile, Wilbur Whateley, whose short and tempestuous earthly life is recounted in the opening half of the tale, is an eight foot tall monstrosity dedicated to the downfall of mankind, who grows to full maturity within ten years of his birth and barely retains the illusion of humanity by means of voluminous, tightly-buttoned clothing and croaking English utterances forced from his alien vocal cords.

Described on about twelve separate occasions by Lovecraft as “goatish”, something tells me Wilbur wouldn’t exactly have been cat-nip to Hollywood’s aspirant young actors when they checked out the story prior to deciding whether or not to accept the offer of a top-billed role from AIP – and indeed, rumour has it that the list of stars who turned down the part, from first choice Peter Fonda on down, was long indeed.

Of course, the choice of Fonda goes some way toward indicating the direction that the film’s writers (including future director Curtis Hanson) wisely took in order to make their adaptation both more commercially viable, and more relevant to its intended audience.

Rather than reluctantly accepting Armitage as the protagonist, casting whichever one of the big horror stars had a few spare months to fill and scripting an hour’s worth of wood-panelled studies and brandy glasses (as would inevitably have been the case a few years earlier), the writers instead took the braver option of going with the younger, more oppositional figure of Wilbur, humanising him to the extent that the bestial, shambling terror described by Lovecraft eventually evolved into the somewhat more presentable form of… Dean Stockwell.


A former child actor (memorably playing the title role in Joseph Losey’s ‘The Boy With Green Hair’ in 1948), Stockwell was still far from a household name in 1970, having worked in film and TV only sporadically during the ‘60s, whilst he meanwhile pursued his primary gig as a visual artist and participant in Hollywood’s thriving counter-culture/rock scene. It was this latter connection that likely won him the role of a rooftop-dwelling Haight Ashbury mystic in Corman’s ‘Psych-Out’, and it was presumably his memorably enigmatic performance there (arguably stealing the movie from Jack Nicholson and Bruce Dern) that brought him in turn to ‘The Dunwich Horror’.

Although Stockwell was reportedly pretty far down AIP’s list of potential leading men, his oddball charisma made him perfect for the kind of callous ‘anti-hero’ protagonist the film needed, and I would go as far as to say that, whether by accident or design, his casting was nothing less than a stroke of genius.

Given what seems to have been a pretty free hand in developing his own character for the film, and with nothing much to go on from the source text (beyond “goatish”), Stockwell completely succeeds in transforming a scheming, inhuman disciple of the Great Old Ones into a compelling central figure, delivering what, in my view, stands as one of most extraordinary performances in any ‘60s horror film. Had the film been more of a success, it should by rights have launched Stockwell immediately into the big leagues - at the very least as a natural successor to the era’s aging ‘horror-men’.

Aside from anything else, character Stockwell builds around Wilbur is just so *funny* – a self-made, self-aware warlock of sophisticated tastes and aspirations, ready to rise above his humble redneck origins and attain a touch of aristocratic grandeur… if only his wretched old grandpa didn’t keep bumbling about, getting in the way; Lovecraftian horror’s answer to Harold Steptoe, no less!

There is a bit of a ‘precocious school-boy’ vibe about him; his supreme self-confidence and powers of persuasion feel entirely ‘book learned’ and, when Sandra Dee’s character falls under his spell, there is a sense that he can’t quite believe his carefully-honed occult pick up techniques have actually worked and snagged him a real life pretty lady.


Though it was probably more accidental than deliberate [see further discussion in part VII below], I love the way that disparity between the shambolic hillbilly frontage of the Whateley house and its grand, stately interiors creates the impression that Wilbur must have redecorated the place single-handedly to aid his ‘hot young warlock’ self-image.

In fact, one of my favourite moments in the whole movie comes when, having seated Sandra in his impressively upholstered fire-side reception area and offered her some tea, Wilbur (who clearly wishes he could summon his loyal servant, Vincent Price style) nips off into a shabby, tract home kitchen complete with lace curtains and match-lit gas stove, emerging a few minutes later with her beverage (drugged, of course) presented upon a magnificent silver serving platter.

As this last point reminds us, discussion of the more comedic aspects of Stockwell’s characterisation should not distract us from the fact that he is also an exceptionally sinister presence. Never remotely sympathetic, he maintains that difficult balance between being purely villainous and inexplicably likeable, suggesting that all those hours Wilbur no doubt spent practicing his chops in front of the mirror before heading off to Arkham in search of the Necronomicon and a handy virgin or two have clearly paid off.

As far as evil sorcerers go, his hypnotic gaze is second to none, and his hand gestures and sacrificial dagger twirling technique should rightly be the stuff of legend. I realise that lengthy ‘cult ritual’ scenes can be a bore for many viewers, but I promise you – when Stockwell is workin’ the altar here, you’ll be willing to watch him for hours.

(In my dreams, I imagine a cross-over sequel in which Stockwell’s Wilbur is pitched against Andrew Prine’s Simon, King of the Witches in the ultimate hippie warlock showdown, but sadly it was not to be.)


VI.


Following the pattern established by all three of the Lovecraft adaptations that preceded it, it was deemed necessary to add a blonde heroine/damsel-in-distress figure to ‘The Dunwich Horror’, and, as mentioned above, this vacancy was filled by Sandra Dee – a former teen star who had attained a certain amount of fame playing the titular character in the hit beach comedy ‘Gidget’ (1959), followed by ‘A Summer Place’ (also ’59) and numerous pictures of a similarly breezy nature. Sadly for any lovers of early ‘60s kitsch in the audience, Dee did not return for ‘Gidget Goes Hawaiian’ in 1961, and by the time she accepted her role in ‘The Dunwich Horror’, several years had elapsed since her last screen appearance (in ‘Doctor, You've Got to Be Kidding!’ (1967)), suggesting that her career might already have been in choppy waters. (2)

As we might well have anticipated, Dee’s thankless role as Wilbur’s victim/lover Nancy didn’t seem to do much to calm the raging waves of career oblivion, especially given that, in an example of hippie-era creepo coercion that exactly mirrors the methodology of Stockwell’s character, she is expected to do *quite a lot* of rather undignified stuff in ‘The Dunwich Horror’, carrying the weight of an uncomfortable swerve toward softcore eroticism that somehow manages to leave the film feeling far sleazier than many of the more explicit horror pictures that followed in the 1970s. (3)

Wilbur’s extended ‘seduction’ of Nancy certainly represents a classic skeevy hippie creep operation, as he takes the lead in the pair’s lengthy, soul-searching philosophical chats, nattering on about sex and repression and psychoanalysis, making much of his ‘open’ and ‘modern’ attitudes whilst simultaneously steering things in his own, crudely manipulative, direction.


Wilbur’s veneer of urbane, soft-spoken erudition and faint air of dignified self-pity is immediately betrayed by the covetous look in his mad, staring, perma-glazed eyes, meaning that he is fooling no one, basically – except Nancy that is, for whose benefit the script-writers throw in suggestions of drugs and hypnosis to cover up for the fact that her attraction to a suitor as obviously malign as Wilbur otherwise feels utterly implausible.

What grates here however is a suspicion that Wilbur’s unsavoury approach to lovin’ is shared to some extent by the film itself. A ludicrous dream sequence, in which Nancy is interminably chased around by a bunch of body-painted slathered cavemen/nightmare hippies, seems like a laborious way to establish the fact that SHE’S REPRESSED - and, as is set out in Hippie Misogyny 101 (Professors Miller & Kerouac consulting), the best way to straighten out an uptight chick is obviously to fuck her.


This Wilbur accomplishes via a second, somewhat more convincing, dream/hallucination sequence, wherein faceless, black-cowled cultists appear alongside him as he presides over Nancy’s robed body on the altar slab of the cliff-top ‘Devil’s Hop Yard’ set. Here, ‘The Dunwich Horror’ becomes the first horror film I can think of to extend the symbolic rape of the ‘sacrificial victim’ scene beloved of all Satanic cult stories into an actual rape, incorporating not only a furtive bit of cloth-covered boob-fondling, but also what by any measure is far too much footage of Dee’s writhing, naked thighs (and I’m speaking here as a Jess Franco fan, so, believe me – this one ‘writhing thighs’ shot really is used a lot).

Complementing the tone of leering unwholesomeness established by this sequence is the later ‘tentacled evil twin attack’ [described in part III, above], which concludes with a strong suggestion that the monster also rapes its victim – an utterly gratuitous addition that, as with the similarly sleazy ‘Cry of the Banshee’, serves only to handily signpost the retreat of censorship at the dawn of the ‘70s whilst also cementing my suspicion that, like its central character, ‘The Dunwich Horror’s thin veneer of enlightened sexual freedom hides an approach to gender that is just as fearful and sophomoric as that of Lovecraft.


VII.


Before we move on (and lord knows, it is definitely time to move on), we should probably take a few minutes to talk about the film’s curious supporting cast. By this stage, it was an established tradition for these AIP horror films to offer roles to ailing Old Hollywood character players (not only Peter Lorre and Lon Chaney, but Elisha Cook Jr, Joe E. Brown and beyond), and, as the producers of ‘The Dunwich Horror’ reached further afield, the players they acquired in this bracket scarcely helped make the film any more normal, let’s put it that way.

At the age of 79, Sam Jaffe – a truly legendary New York stage actor and a veteran of ‘The Asphalt Jungle’, ‘Gunga Din’ and ‘Ben Hur’ amongst many others – proves a particularly odd presence as Old Man Whateley. Whilst he certainly gives it his all, the poor chap just never seems to ‘fit’, shuffling about, hoarsely shouting his dialogue straight to camera, and generally giving every indication of having absolutely no idea what he’s doing in this movie. As a result, his character is far too scatter-brained and sympathetic to ring even remotely true as the callous sorcerer patriarch whose cracked inter-dimensional breeding experiments caused this whole mess in the first place.

Meanwhile, Ed Begley (yes, father of the ‘80s/’90s comic actor and TV star) takes an unscheduled break from his long CV of police chiefs, corrupt politicians and sweaty industrialists to essay the role of Dr Henry Armitage, looking just as out of place as Jaffe as the story’s retiring librarian turned incantation-wielding exorcist. Though he never gets anywhere near to embodying the soft-spoken academic envisioned by Lovecraft, his characteristically belligerent, two-fisted approach to the role is nonetheless quite enjoyable, especially his stone-faced, sheriff-like determination that that damned Wilbur Whateley ain’t going nowhere with his precious Necronomicon.

(Given that Jaffe was reportedly a gentle, humanitarian mathematician off-screen, whereas Begley gives every impression of being a raging bad-ass, I’d be tempted to suggest that ‘The Dunwich Horror’ might have been benefited from swapping their roles, but frankly this review is long enough already without me offering 50-years-late advice to possibly-deceased casting directors, so we’ll let it slide.)


VIII.


A few years on from ‘Die Monster Die!’, Daniel Haller still doesn’t come across as quite what you’d call a ‘stand-out’ director here, and, conventionally speaking, ‘The Dunwich Horror’ is uneven, slackly paced and generally all over the place. But, he certainly does his best, clearly working hard to try to make each scene memorable and interesting to look at, and that counts for a lot.

As befits the film’s counter-cultural vibe, there is a lot of casually ‘weird’, quasi-experimental camerawork, with deliberately blurred shots, Jess Franco-style drifting, handheld close-ups and some great extreme low angles on Stockwell’s character, whilst every trick in the book is meanwhile employed to make things feel a bit ‘psychedelic’, with hap-hazard super-impositions of crashing waves and sun-light shining through tree-tops, random subliminal jump cuts and masses of filtering and solarisation. (The aforementioned cult rape nightmare/hallucination sequence even seems be shot through a thick cotton gauze, which is… interesting.)

(Whilst we’re on the subject, no explanation is ever given for the weird, glowing, translucent glass objects that Wilbur Whateley keeps on his coffee table. They seem to hold some kind of alien/occult significance – like space-age scrying orbs or something? – but this is never expanded upon. An odd visual non-sequitur whose very inclusion in the finished film tells its own story, they definitely feel a bit “hey man, look what the props guy found in town – far-out!” if you ask me.)


This feeling of psychedelic saturation is aided immeasurably by Les Baxter’s suffocatingly baroque, incessantly repetitive score, which is just off the goddamn hook, quite frankly – an insanely bombastic confection of end-times orchestral exotica and wailing, otherworldly vibrato that does much to anchor the film’s fetid, over-ripe atmosphere, even in its more earth-bound moments.

Elsewhere, signs of Haller’s formidable expertise as an art director are frequently in evidence. The interiors of Whateley house seem to re-use bits of the famously recycled sets Haller accumulated whilst working on the Poe movies (if I’m not mistaken, both the opening birth scene and Nancy’s troubled dreams take place in an extravagently redecorated version of Roderick Usher’s bedroom), and the elaborate matte painting used for the establishing shots of the ‘Devil’s Hop Yard’ (the aforementioned inexplicable cliff top pagan altar upon which Wilbur has his wicked way with Nancy) is absolutely stunning – one of my favourite such efforts in all of ‘60s horror in fact.

Though only seen briefly, the full exterior of the Wheatley house also looks very convincing when freeze-framed – I’m not even sure if it was a real location or a matte job, but either way it’s a shame it wasn’t used more extensively – and the house’s entrance hall, complete with giant sigil in the centre of the floor and shelves of mouldering old blasphemous tomes, is rather nifty too.


In contract to the essentially stage-bound / self-contained nature of Corman’s gothics however, ‘The Dunwich Horror’s plotting necessitates that the film must ramble around all over the place, taking the action considerably beyond the boundaries of these well-turned-out environments, utilising a variety of ad-hoc sets and random locations that never really fit together with one another, making it difficult for Haller to establish the kind of consistent visual ‘world’ upon which the atmosphere of a good Lovecraftian tale so heavily relies. (Even the aforementioned strengths of the production design are undermined when we switch to poorly matched close-ups.)

Furthermore, whilst some of the film’s earlier scenes achieve a respectable level of groovy, Bava-esque mood lighting, much of the rest is over-lit in that particularly flat, artless, ‘60s Hollywood kinda style that reveals pokey sets for exactly what they are and kills any hint of atmosphere stone dead, evincing either a lack of time for proper set-ups, or a lack of imagination on the part of credited DP Richard C. Glouner.

Likewise, the fall-back on ‘trippy’ visual effects does often cross the line into outright goofiness, even for a viewer such as myself, who normally lives for this kind of stuff. (Yes, I’m particularly thinking here of THAT dream sequence with the painted hippies - a weak travesty of the by-now-traditional Poe/Corman dream sequences whose ham-fisted borrowings from ‘60s ‘underground’ cinema ironically render it far less disorientating and psychologically potent than it’s more subtle predecessors.)

Generally speaking though, ‘subtlety’ is not something any sane viewer should expect to find on the menu here. In fact, ‘The Dunwich Horror’ is so gloriously over the top in every respect that it is difficult to even take account of its many flaws upon first viewing, let alone dwell upon them.

Regardless of any discussion re: what does and does not work herein, ‘Dunwich..’, like so many films of its era, feels very much like a project in which both the intent of the filmmakers and the nature of the subject matter found themselves completely subsumed by the cultural currents raging around the time and place in which it was made.


IX.

Location filming for ‘The Dunwich Horror’ took place in Mendocino, California, at the height of that town’s rebirth as a veritable rural retreat for counter-culturally inclined refugees from L.A. and San Francisco (check out Doug Sahm’s 1969 hymn to the joys of life in Mendocino here), and it seems likely that many in the cast and crew, evolving from the always somewhat bohemian Corman circle, considered themselves to be coming from an authentically ‘turned on’ headspace. (4)

Nonetheless though, the cheesy, opportunistic manner in which the film’s hippie vibes manifest themselves aligns it more with the kind of “turned on Hollywood” madness that allowed atrocities like Otto Preminger’s Skidoo to become a reality (funnily enough, it was in that film that Corman reportedly first saw the work of Sandy Dvore, who provided the animated credits sequence for ‘Dunwich..’).

In fact, it could well be argued that, by comparing to the slyly transgressive counter-cultural elements that sneaked into earlier Corman/AIP productions to the more explicitly “way-out” agenda of ‘The Dunwich Horror’, we can see in microcosm how the explosion of the “hippie” aesthetic into the mainstream of American culture in the late ‘60s quickly dulled the edge of its message to the point of blunt self-parody.

Whereas the beatnik satire of ‘A Bucket of Blood’ (1959) and the edgy psycho-analytical subtexts and proto-psychedelic touches of the early Poe films still feel vital to this day, the “anything goes” mentality that prevailed by the time ‘Dunwich..’ went before the cameras resulted in a movie that simply feels bloated, decadent and zoned out.

Any hint of social or spiritual relevance that the filmmakers may or may not have had a yen to convey is rendered vague in the extreme, lost amid the script’s decidedly mixed messages, and further confused by the instant-kitsch barrage of ‘weirdy’ visual effects, faux-hip dialogue and awkward, opportunistic sexual content.

At same time though, the movie still retains a darker edge, largely as a result of Stockwell’s spectacularly sinister performance, and the unsavoury historical resonances that, in retrospect, it can’t help but conjure for us.


If you’ll forgive me some pretty morbid fact-checking: ‘The Dunwich Horror’ premiered in January 1970, having presumably been shot during the preceding spring/summer. The Tate-LaBianca murders took place in August 1969. Charles Manson was arrested, on unrelated charges, in October. From December 1969 onwards, the LAPD began piecing together evidence linking him to the killings, and Life Magazine’s famous cover story – which first gained Manson widespread notoriety – appeared in the same month.

With his Rasputin-like hypnotic gaze, his hipster guru patter and his drug-aided brain-washing and sexual exploitation of vulnerable women, Dean Stockwell’s portrayal of Wilbur Whateley is a clear exemplar of the “evil hippie cult leader” archetype that would soon proliferate through popular culture in the wake of the publicity surrounding Manson’s arrest and trial – but, as the dates above make clear, Stockwell and ‘The Dunwich Horror’s other principal creators were trying this get-up on for size before Manson and his activities become public knowledge, and possibly before his principle crimes were even carried out.

We’re moving into the realm of pure speculation here of course, but it occurs to me that, as turned on, creative cats on the Hollywood scene, this film’s star, writers and director were all potentially in the right time and place to have run into, or at least been aware of, Manson’s “family” and their antics at an earlier stage than most.

Just drawing from my own knowledge for instance, I’m aware that Stockwell was a close friend of Neil Young at around this time [he is credited on Young’s 1970 ‘After The Goldrush’ album with writing the unproduced screenplay that inspired the title song]. Young has subsequently confessed that he remembers ‘partying’ with the Manson girls whilst the “family” were still ensconced at Dennis Wilson’s house, so…. that leaves us just one step removed, for a start..?

Again, I need to stress that, without undertaking closer scrutiny or in-depth research on the subject, we have *nothing definite to go on* when it comes to trying to nail down this extremely tenuous connection, but regardless – you get where I’m heading with this, I’m sure.

And, as obsessive mappers of pop cultural fault lines will no doubt already have noted, this loops us straight back around to the influence that ‘Rosemary’s Baby’ exerted upon the production of ‘The Dunwich Horror’, with the legacy of the former film often haunted by the perception that it in some way constitutes a psychic precursor to the tragic events that befell its director a year or so later.

Between these two films in fact, can we see enacted on screen both the premonitios and after-shocks of the terrible black vortex of Hollywood, August 1969, whose fringes they both skirt..? Or, am I just going way too far with this stuff..? You tell me.

Either way though, the realisation that the makers ‘The Dunwich Horror’ were positing a clearly Manson-esque figure as a horror movie anti-hero whilst, not a million miles away, the genuine article was simultaneously carrying out his most infamous deeds lends the film a more deeply disturbing aura than anything Lovecraft could have envisioned.


X.


As ‘The Dunwich Horror’ rolls on toward its pleasantly rollicking finale – wherein the invisible beast solarises its way through several gun-toting rednecks and Wilbur’s ghastly sex-magick conjurations are interrupted by Dr Armitage, prompting an incantation-slinging showdown so daft it must be seen to be believed – we are liable to find ourselves reflecting on the fact that, though ‘Dunwich..’ constitutes a bit of a one-off, evolutionary dead end within the wider horror canon, it nonetheless exhibits a number of similarities with the small number of other Lovecraft movies that trickled out through the 1960s.

Like ‘The Haunted Palace’, ‘Dunwich..’ ends with the heroine about to sacrificed on an elaborate altar to a shapeless, glowing evil god of some kind (a scenario that Lovecraft never actually used in any of his stories, as far as I can recall), and, as seen in both ‘The Haunted Palace’ and ‘The Shuttered Room’, the old “mutant sibling behind the locked door” trope gets another outing too. (Far from being contained behind the traditional padlocked door, the evil twin in Lovecraft’s story grows to such monstrous proportions that Wilbur eventually converts his entire house into a kind of ‘holding chamber’ for it – an idea which was presumably deemed a touch too ambitious for the movie.)

As we have already noted, all four of the Lovecraft films made to this date chose to override the author’s frequent refusal to even aknowledge the existence of women by parachuting a pretty heroine into the middle of their respective stories. With the exception of Debra Paget in ‘The Haunted Palace’, the other three actresses in question (Susan Farmer, Carol Lynley and Sandra Dee) were all blondes, and all possess a strange, vacant, somewhat doll-like quality that makes them seem almost like variations on the same character.

As a ‘type’, they perhaps tell us more about the role of women in ‘60s horror films in general than anything specifically related to Lovecraft adaptations, but, along with the other recurring tropes outlined above, I believe their repetition through these films nonetheless went on to exert a significant influence upon not just the shape of future Lovecraft adaptations, but the popular perception of what constitutes a “Lovecraft type story” in general – a theme that we will perhaps be able to pick up again in future instalments of this series.


XI.


‘The Dunwich Horror’ was not the final entry in AIP’s loose string of marginally Poe/Lovecraft-affiliated gothic horrors - ‘Cry of the Banshee’ followed in July 1970 and Gordon Hessler’s subsequent ‘Murders in the Rue Morgue’ didn’t arrive until September ‘71. But, this was the last one to be shot in America, and, thematically speaking, it certainly feels like the strange culmination of everything that AIP’s different productions strands had been inadvertently making their way towards since the start of the ‘60s. As such, the symbolic weight of the film’s January 1970 release date seems almost too perfect.

Not only AIP’s horror films, but their ‘beach party’ teen movies, their drug/bikesploitation flicks – all seem somehow to meet, and to collapse in upon themselves within the fabric of ‘The Dunwich Horror’. And, thanks to the intervention of way heavier counter-culture vibes than those that had prevailed when Roger Corman first began filtering hints of beatnik jive into his pictures back in the late ‘50s, they do this in a wilder, weirder and more hair-raising fashion than anyone might have anticipated.

Certainly, as the studio’s leading lights found themselves in the screening room watching a former icon of teen beach comedies writhing in ecstasy with a copy Lovecraft’s Necronomicon between her legs, whilst a bohemian drop-out former child star portrayed a knife-wielding, quasi-Mansonite madman, ranting ceaselessly about extra-dimensional gods as the cloying psychedelic excess of Les Baxter’s maddening score melted minds left, right and centre…. well, is it any wonder that both AIP and executive producer Roger Corman decided enough was enough, and that the time had come to pull the plug on this mutated ‘60s netherzone before things got out of hand?

Within a few years, the U.S. exploitation/drive-in business as a whole had hit the breaks hard on all this hippie horror shit. By ’72, AIP’s production slate was filled with gangsters, kung-fu killers and shotgun-packin’ mamas, whilst Corman, now flying solo with New World Pictures, had his Candy Stripe Nurses and Big Doll House to bring home the bacon. In other words, things were back down to earth with a bump.

And so, where did this leave our hopes for further expeditions into the worlds of H.P. Lovecraft reaching commercial movie screens…? Well, pretty damn high and dry to be honest, but that’s a story for another day when (god help us all) ‘Lovecraft on Film’ next returns. For now, I simply thank you for making it to the end of what is by far the longest of the many over-long posts I’ve written for this blog over the years, and until the next time, Ia! Ia! Yog-Sothoth! Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn!

--------


There’s not a great deal of alternative poster artwork for ‘The Dunwich Horror’ to display here (just about all markets went with a variation on the post at the top of this post, as far as I can tell), but the Black Hole Reviews weblog did dig up this neat bit of pre-production publicity (from Films and Filming, 1969), with Peter Fonda apparently attached to star…

…and then there's this startling publicity still, featuring a topless Sandra Dee being menaced by somebody in an owl mask?! (Nothing of the kind is included in the finished film, needless to say.) I’d love to know the story behind this.

---------

(1) For more info on the ‘Crimson Friday’ project, see Steve Haberman’s highly informative commentary track on the 2016 Shout Factory two-fer blu-ray of ‘The Dunwich Horror’ and ‘The Murders in the Rue Morgue’ (1971). For info, various others bits of otherwise unsourced production info and speculation included in this review also originate from Haberman’s commentary, so all credit to him for putting in the leg-work re: filling in the background on these otherwise rather overlooked movies.

(2) In her own way in fact, Dee stands as just as much of a Hollywood cult figure as Stockwell, if not more-so. She was immortalised in the song “Look at Me, I’m Sandra Dee” from ‘Grease’ (1978), and her tempestuous marriage to singer Bobby Darin and subsequent fall from grace has been explored in a number of books and films over the years.

(3) Apropos of nothing, it is interesting to note that Dee’s ‘Gidget’ co-star James Darren was treading similarly weird terrain at around this time, as the ill-fated male lead in Jess Franco’s Venus in Furs. Strange times indeed.

(4) Fans of especially eerie period synchronicity may wish to note that the Sir Douglas Quintet video I’ve linked to features some of the last known footage of Sharon Tate, appearing less than a month before her murder.

Wednesday, 28 June 2017

Objects Regained.

Further to my post last month regarding the disappearance of the Found Objects weblog, I’m happy to report that the blog now has a new home here, and that many old posts (including some of my own) have been dragged from the depths of the interweb and reinstated, whilst new additions have thus far been popping up on a regular basis.

Huge thanks are due to Pete aka Bollops (sometime proprietor of Boring Old Books) for bringing this resurrection about, and I am hoping I can play a part in making sure the new site remains a going concern.

Interested parties are encouraged to read, follow, spread the word, contribute [but not arbitrarily delete, please] at their leisure.

Saturday, 17 June 2017

Four Rampos.


We return here to our old pal Edogawa Rampo, with four random entries from a long series of paperbacks collecting his stories, issued by Kadakawa Books during the 1970s. The superb cover illustrations are provided by paper-cut artist Masayuki Miyata (1926–1997), a framed example of whose work we previously saw displayed at Rampo’s house [see link above].

Each of these volumes contains several tales, but the names / title stories, in the order they are displayed above, are:

1. Kumo-Otoko (The Spider Man) (1974)
2. Panorama-to Kidan (The Strange Tale of Panorama Island) (1974)
3. Kage-Otoko (Man of Shadows) (1973)
4. Sankaku-kan no Kyohu (Fear of the Triangular House?) (1974)

The fifth image is a generic series illustration, repeated on the back cover of all four volumes. In common with many Japanese paperbacks, the artwork is printed on detachable, hardback-style dust jackets -- which is pretty cool.

Though I have been banging on about him occasionally on the blog for quite a while, it is only in the past year or so that I have actually made the effort to begin tracking down and reading Rampo’s stories in English translation, and, even more-so than I might have expected, they are absolutely extraordinary.

Though capsule biographies of Rampo often tend to paint him as a devotee of Western-style mystery and detective stories, the way in which he spikes the conventions of coldly logical, whodunit detection with the irrational perversity of human desire feels uniquely transgressive, unlocking fearful vistas of ambiguity and apprehension that place him within an aesthetic world that is entirely his own; a world that I feel is brilliantly captured by Miyata’s artwork.

I picked these books up for peanuts in Nakano Broadway, and now just wish that I could read them.

Tuesday, 6 June 2017

The Adventures of John Carpenter
in the 21st Century:
The Ward (2010)

Ok, so – let’s try to get this one over and done with as quickly as possible.

2010’s ‘The Ward’ is, at the time of writing, John Carpenter’s most recent film as director. I haven’t had a chance to do any research or read any interviews pertaining to Carpenter’s reasons for taking on the project, but I can only speculate that he must have agreed to do it as the result of some sort of personal favour or family obligation.

Was one of the producers his son-in-law or daughter-in-law or something? Or was it all a country club handshake deal with an old friend, or somesuch? I don’t know.

Such speculation may seem facetious, but I honestly just can’t think of any other reason – creative, artistic, even economic - for The Great John Carpenter return from semi-retirement to lend his talents to this thoroughly mediocre indie horror movie. (The only other possibilities would seem to involve blackmail or mob intimidation, but best not go too far down that line of thought.)

Unfortunately, pondering such back stage machinations is actually a more enjoyable prospect than trying to talk about ‘The Ward’, which is…. well, to be fair to it, I should probably admit that I’m perhaps not best placed to pass judgement on a film like this.

I watch very few contemporary horror films, and when I do make the effort, I tend to stick pretty strictly to those that have attracted positive critical attention or good word of mouth from people whose opinions I value. When it comes to what you might call the “next rung down” - the middling, largely unremarked efforts - whether mainstream studio releases that pop up for a few weeks around Halloween, or cheaper, straight-to-streaming imitations thereof – well, let’s just say that I don’t have enough experience to really assess how ‘The Ward’ stacks up against them. Is it a respectable effort in this vein, or an absolute stinker? Is it even quite good, as far as these things go? I really don’t know.

What I can say with slightly more authority is that, in and off itself, I thought it was pretty awful. A painfully derivative, blandly conceived effort that in the course of vaguely trying to be ‘clever’ and ‘serious’ (and failing on both counts) seems to have had everything that used to make lower budget horror movies fun systematically sucked out of it.

In particular, ‘The Ward’ serves to demonstrate the way in which themes that used to be (correctly) roped off as pretty heavy stuff within the genre – childhood trauma, false memories, mental illness, confinement, torture etc – have now become tokenistic horror signifiers, to be lazily thrown around and mixed up to no particularly clear purpose (or even just for the sake of good ol’ exploitation and sleaze, which is notably absent here).

Unlike the werewolves and Satanic cults of old furthermore, this kind of stuff is really just no fun without a decent storyline or committed performances to go with it, which leads to make me wonder why ‘The Ward’ and countless films of a similar ilk continue to even get made…. but, enough of my proto-geriatric ramblings.

In purely technical terms, it goes without saying that ‘The Ward’ is pretty well made. Compositions and camera movements are as slick as you’d expect from a director of Carpenter’s calibre, and the movie’s scary/ghosty bits are reasonably efficient, doing more or less what they are supposed to do.

Essentially though, getting John Carpenter behind the camera on this thing feels like putting a Rolls Royce engine inside a lawnmower, with literally no other aspect of the production rising to a level that would normally justify his participation or interest.

Going in, I was hoping some interest might emerge from the fact that much of the movie takes place within an all-female psychiatric ward, potentially allowing Carpenter to work up a sort of gender-reversed take on ‘The Thing’, perhaps? Well - no dice. I’m afraid anyone coming to ‘The Ward’ in search of a new twist on the director’s conflicted approach to gender will be sorely disappointed. A crass (or merely unimaginative) casting process results in the titular ward resembling a retreat for troubled super-models, and the script gives none of the actresses anything to work with, should any of them have had a yen to make something of their characters.

To give an indication of just how sloppy ‘The Ward’ gets as a character drama, the bulk of the action is supposed to be set in the 1960s, but upon first viewing I completely forgot about this until a retro, ‘Ghostbusters’-style ambulance rolled in for one of the closing scenes, such is the contemporary (or merely bland) nature of the cast’s dialogue, behaviour and appearance.

As you might gather from this, production design shoots for ‘austere’ but instead merely hits ‘boring’, with the drained colour photography and depressing aesthetic of white walls, iron radiators, peeling paint, empty rooms and the like predominating.

Built on confusing morass of flashbacks, flashforwards and god knows what, the story is superficial, poorly developed and pretty unconvincing, highlighting once again the extent to which the post-‘Sixth Sense’ obsession with trick endings and clunky, heavily signposted misdirection has so often made watching modern horror movies a drag.

And… what else can you say really? I think I’d best call it day on this one. Basically, I just really, really hope that John Carpenter manages to come back and direct something else at some point in the future, even if it’s just a cartoon or a short or something, because it would be a tragedy to see such a wonderful filmmaker go to his grave with this shrug of a movie as the final item on his CV.

Monday, 29 May 2017

The Adventures of John Carpenter
in the 21st Century:
Cigarette Burns (2005)



After effectively clearing his desk and waving goodbye to the Hollywood rat-race following the critical and commercial failure of ‘Ghosts of Mars’ in 2001, John Carpenter’s next directorial assignment was a one hour TV movie, produced as part of the first series of the ‘Masters of Horror’ project in 2005. Subsequent to its original broadcast, ‘Cigarette Burns’ has lived on as one of the most talked about and well regarded entries in that series… although the extent to which its success can be attributed to Carpenter’s participation is debatable, as we shall go on to discuss.

Before we get to that though, Drew McWeeny and Scott Swan’s script for ‘Cigarette Burns’ is very much a “high concept” number, and a pretty great one at that, so a quick synopsis is probably in order.

Basically, the story here is nothing less than a cult movie in-joke blown up into a full-blooded piece of cosmic horror, built around what is basically a celluloid equivalent of Lovecraft’s ‘Necronomicon’ (or, more prosaically, a movie-world version of the 1999 Polanski thriller ‘The Ninth Gate’).

Our protagonist is Kirby (Norman Reedus), the proprietor of a struggling Alamo Drafthouse-style repertory cinema, who also holds a formidable reputation for tracking down elements for lost and ultra-obscure films. It is in the latter capacity that Kirby visits the home of a decadent, ultra-wealthy collector named Bellinger (played for maximum creep effect by Udo Kier), who offers him enough money to immediately write off his debts and save his cinema, if he can track down a print of one particular film.

All well and good then, but we can almost feel Kirby’s guts perform a somersault when Kier dramatically announces that the film he wishes to locate is… ‘La Fin Absolue du Monde’.

The near mythic final work of a controversial (and deceased) European director named Hans Backovic, ‘La Fin Absolue du Monde’ was publically screened only once, at the Sitges festival in 1969. Legend has it that people died, and blood ran in the aisles. Survivors refused to discuss what had happened in the screening room, and were never quite the same. The director’s sole print of the film was reported to have been seized by the Spanish authorities and destroyed. Or was it…?

Bellinger has of course been obsessively collecting ephemera related to ‘La Fin Absolue du Monde’ (a framed poster hangs next to his priceless three-sheets for ‘Metropolis’ and ‘Nosferatu’), and the stakes are raised further when he offers to show Kirby the jewel of his collection – a living souvenir from the production that subsists in darkness, chained in his basement.

Now, if you’re anything like me, by this point the rest of this review will pretty much be moot. You will need to seek out and watch ‘Cigarette Burns’ immediately.

Ever since Lovecraft first placed the idea in my head as a teenager, I’ve loved the notion of a cultural artefact so terrible (in the literal sense of the word) that it destroys those who come into contact with it, and have always found myself totally captivated by stories along those lines.

That the ephemera surrounding weird, esoteric movies also greatly appeals to me should be no-brainer given the nature of this weblog, and I’m happy to report that, for the most part, McWeeny and Swan’s script tackles this material as well as could be wished for, mixing up just the right quantities of mystery and ambiguity, attention to detail and engrossing detective work to create a slow, creeping sense of dread and fascination around ‘La Fin Absolue du Monde’, building up our anticipation of the moment when Kirby finally finds himself touching the canisters containing the reels of the film to fever pitch.

Given that this review strand focuses on John Carpenter though, we should probably divert our attention back toward his contributions, and, the first thing that will be obvious to the director’s fans is that ‘Cigarette Burns’ does not feel very much like a John Carpenter film. I’m not sure at what stage of the pre-production Carpenter became involved, but suffice to say that, beyond the actual, technical business of directing, the other distinctive touches that feed into what we think of as “a John Carpenter movie” – usually incorporating everything from the writing, to the casting, to the score – are notable by their absence.

My gut feeling is that Carpenter must have approached this one as a straight “shoot the script as written” job, and, given the strength of the material provided him by the writers and the wealth of interesting plot detail to be covered, that was probably a good call.

Nonetheless, I hate to say it, but…. I can’t help but feel that the intermittent weaknesses that compromise this otherwise excellent film could potentially be interpreted as the result of Carpenter bungling certain aspects of the script that simply presented him with situations and ideas that he was simply unable to get a proper angle on.

It’s not as if Carpenter hadn’t taken a few creditable shots at cosmic horror in the past (see ‘Prince of Darkness’ (1987) and ‘In The Mouth Of Madness’ (1994) in particular), but, whilst I like both of those films, I’ve always felt that his sensibility as a director does not really lend itself to grasping the totality of the Lovecraft/Kneale-derived stories he so obviously admires.

Caprenter’s take on things is just too, I dunno… pulpy, for want of a better word. His best films are down to earth, action-orientated, practical. At times, he has been able to conjure great power and atmospheric gravitas from Weird Tales-esque subject matter, but when more careful notes of subtlety are required, or when things start to get more cerebral, multi-layered or mind-bending, he has a tendency to (sometimes literally) lose the plot.

Thus, whilst the treatment of ‘La Fin Absolue du Monde’ during the first half of ‘Cigarette Burns’ achieves an absolutely sublime level of eeriness, things become progressively more inconsistent as our protagonist gets closer to comprehending the true nature of the film-within-a-film.

Personally speaking, I found the story’s ‘angels & demons’ angle to be both tediously over-familiar and pretty poorly handled, and the film’s conclusion is also marred by the inclusion of an excruciatingly silly, sub-Fulci gore set-piece that seems to have been thrown in purely as a rather patronising attempt to keep the horror fans ‘on-side’ – but whether you wish to place the blame these minor fumbles on script, director, the producers of the series or some combination thereof is largely a moot point.

A more significant misstep comes I think when Carpenter actually begins to let us see pieces of footage from the dreaded, blasphemous reels of ‘La Fin Absolue du Monde’, and – in the tradition of every film you’ve ever seen in which a character is built up as an artistic genius whilst the poor production designer is handed the thankless task of coming up with some evidence to justify this assertion – it is inevitably a bit of a let-down.

As if echoing the real life experience of soaring expectation followed by crushing let-down that frequently befalls those of us who make a habit of tracking down weird and obscure movies, the scene earlier in ‘Cigarette Burns’ in which we get to see some production stills from ‘La Fin Absolue du Monde’ is almost heart-stoppingly exciting - all the more so given how closely it mirrors the feeling I’m sure we’re all familiar with, when one sees a hazily suggestive black & white still from some extraordinary, esoteric movie reproduced in a reference book and thinks, “my god, what is this movie?! I must see it!”.

It is in these moments – whilst interrogating the networks of fascination, repulsion and obsession that underlay our shared desire to seek out non-mainstream films – that ‘Cigarette Burns’ is at its strongest, finding new ways to fuse the real life interests and activities of its perceived viewers with intimations of doom-laden supernatural horror.

The moment it becomes clear however that ‘La Fin Absolue du Monde’ basically just resembles some pretentious, Catholic-baiting Euro-arthouse S&M/torture flick – the kind of thing a particularly po-faced student might come up with after watching a few Borowczyk or Robbe-Grillet films - the spell is broken.

Another significant drawback arises from the fact that, whereas in his own films Carpenter has pretty much always framed his characters within a semi-fantastical, action-adventure environment, ‘Cigarette Burns’ by contrast requires him to present his protagonist’s back-story (which involves drug addiction, the death of a partner and a hefty burden of subsequent guilt and responsibility) in strictly realistic, harrowing terms.

As a result, the scenes in question are played so heavy-handedly they’re almost laughable, raising sniggers from moments in our characters’ lives that should be devastating, and botching the whole (potentially very interesting) aspect of the story wherein the power of ‘La Fin Absolue du Monde’ lies in its ability to become toxically entwined with the personal failings and guilty consciences of the individuals who become involved with it. Such an idea is, admittedly, pretty difficult to fully elucidate on screen, and I hope readers will understand that it is not necessarily a criticism of Carpenter when I say I suspect that, working under the time and budgetary constraints of a one hour TV movie, he couldn’t really make it fly.

But, I don’t want to accentuate the negative too much here. Although flawed to a certain extent, ‘Cigarette Burns’ is nonetheless a captivating and thought-provoking effort that – in direct contrast to the reassuringly familiar terrain of ‘Ghost of Mars’ – sees Carpenter casting the net of his ambitions way beyond the limits of the comfort zone he had carefully established for himself in preceding decades, producing a bold and unique horror film that, whatever your eventual take on it is, certainly stands as a ‘must see’ for anyone with an interest in cosmic horror, the culture surrounding ‘cult films’, and the potential intersection between the two.

Were it not a TV show, this would be one of those movies for which you would be well advised to book a table in advance for the post-screening discussion, which is liable to get just as involving as the movie itself. I highly recommend tracking it down, despite having just spent the best part of a thousand words griping about all things it got wrong.

Monday, 22 May 2017

The Adventures of John Carpenter
in the 21st Century:
Ghosts of Mars (2001)



Strangely enough, I’d pretty sure I actually attended the UK premiere of John Carpenter’s last Proper Movie to date way back in… 2001, I’m assuming? If I recall correctly, this event took place in the inauspicious environs of Leicester’s local arts cinema, and, as a student in the city at the time, I’d snagged a season ticket to their annual Fantastic Film Fest (oft referenced here in the past), and so went along.

The reception, it must be said, seemed muted. In fact I don’t recall the atmosphere being much different to that of yr average Tuesday night movie screening. Until I re-watched it this year, I didn’t remember very much at all about the film itself, but, being at the time a rather snobbish fan of cerebral, “big idea” sci-fi and avant garde freakiness, I don’t think I liked it very much.

More fool me then, and more fool the rest of the world, who apparently joined me in consigning ‘Ghost of Mars’ to unremembered oblivion amid the millennial whirl of the early ‘00s, prompting (or at least accelerating) Carpenter’s decision to pack it in and make a tactical withdrawal from the world of mainstream filmmaking.

Returning to the film in 2017, with of fifteen years of water under the bridge, I’m sure I won’t be the only Carpenter fan to take a chance on the recent blu-ray reissue and discover that, whilst it’s certainly no lost classic, ‘Ghost of Mars’ is, in a profound sense, actually pretty good.

I mean, clearly no one is going to try to make the case for ‘Ghosts..’ as one of Carpenter’s best films, and in terms of production value it’s probably one of his least ambitious projects, but in a sense it is the very modesty of the film’s ambitions that serve to make it such an enjoyable prospect today.

Taken on its own terms as a late-VHS-era b-movie in fact, I would contend that ‘Ghost of Mars’ is rock solid, with Carpenter’s distinctive guiding hand discernable in just about every aspect of the production, from the initial concept to the final edit. So - if the idea of John Carpenter directing a rock solid late-VHS-era b-movie pleases you, hesitate no longer over that “add to basket” button, because I’m confident you’ll have a good time here.

I don’t imagine that Carpenter planned ‘Ghosts..’ as his “last hurrah”, but in retrospect the movie’s tendency to fall back on story elements retooled from ‘Assault of Precinct 13’, ‘The Fog’ and ‘The Thing’ certainly gives it a self-referential “last lap of the track” vibe that – whilst much criticised in contemporary reviews - now allows us to indulge in some pleasurable nostalgia for an era in which movies such as these actually got made.

For those of us of a certain age and inclination in fact, ‘Ghosts of Mars’s potential as rainy day comfort viewing is immense. Not only is it probably the closest Carpenter ever came to the kind of modest, Hawksian western he always claimed he really wanted to make, but, speaking as a child of ‘90s video rentals, I also found myself loving ‘Ghosts..’s production design, which resembles a kind of perfect amalgam of every mid-budget/straight to video sci-fi actioner that that decade produced.

It’s full of unfeasibly bulked up post-‘Aliens’ assault rifles, tense walks down clanking corridors, faux-tough guy posturing, infra-red “monster-vision”, cyber-punky made up drugs and set within one of those weird, brightly lit ‘Total Recall’-esque dystopian off-planet colonies that actually looks quite nice and orderly -- and, somehow, all this squares quite nicely with the kind of no nonsense script that could easily have been “Raid on Dry Gulch” or some-such in a former life.

Natasha Henstridge from the ‘Species’ movies turns in a surprisingly strong performance as our resident space-sheriff, proving beyond doubt that she had the necessary acting chops to carry this kind of movie (if only anyone had been paying attention), and, if Ice Cube sadly doesn’t make much of an impression as our Snake Plissken/Napoleon Wilson surrogate (“Desolation Williams”!), there’s no shortage of other interesting contenders to fill the vacuum, from Jason Stratham doing his latter-day cockney action man thing to Robert Carradine drivin’ the big train, Joanna Cassidy from ‘Bladerunner’ fleeing across the Martian desert in a shakily CGI-assisted hot air balloon (shades of Edgar Rice Burroughs, perhaps..?), and, how can you say no to Pam Grier as the butch dyke space police commander? (With difficulty is the answer you’re looking for.)

Given its status as an unpretentious action-adventure movie furthermore, I think some of the ideas in ‘Ghost of Mars’ aren’t half bad. Considering the kind of comic machismo, barely concealed homo-erotic sub-texts and quaintly adolescent fear of women that had long dominated Carpenter’s films by the time he made this one, the decision to make the Mars colony a matriarchy is certainly an interesting one, and, though the implications of this are never really explored in much depth, there is nonetheless an enjoyable frisson to be found in watching an action movie in which most positions of power and normative authority belong to female characters, with the men conversely portrayed as ‘plucky underdogs’ and suchlike. (I also enjoyed the way that the film’s outlaw characters sneeringly accuse each other of “workin’ for The Woman”.)

The possessed Martian miners who comprise the film’s monster-threat are pretty good too, representing a distinctive and genuinely alarming spin on what could easily have been a rather ho-hum “Indians-via-zombies” type effort. With their bodies now inhabited by the spirits (or “ghosts”, y’see) of barbaric ancient Martian warriors, the human colonists begin filing their teeth, practicing grotesque self-mutilation and forging improvised new weapons for themselves, until they resemble some goth-damaged take on a Warhammer 40,000 army, waving their war banners and hefting improbably massive multi-bladed hand weapons as they bear down upon our heroes’ encampment. Though the mall-goth type make up they favour is.. kind of strange (well, it was 2001 I suppose), this is all pretty awesome, to be honest.

Although the film’s climactic siege situation had generally been read as a rehash of ‘Assault on Precinct 13’ (Henstridge & Cube’s similarly ‘Rio Bravo’-inspired sheriff/prisoner relationship certainly suggests as much), these more visible and flamboyant antagonists really make it more of a space-age/’Road Warrior’-filtered take on a good ol’ Rourke’s Drift scenario, and Carpenter clearly had a ton of fun with this notion, even throwing in a blatant homage to ‘Zulu’ at one point as he has his survivors adopt a first rank / second rank firing strategy to take down the Martians pouring through their over-run defenses.

All in all, it is difficult for me to find anything to dislike in a film that panders to my rose-tinted ideal of John Carpenter making a sci-fi action film in 2001 quite as warmly and generously as ‘Ghosts of Mars’. Even the soundtrack, built around woefully dated layers of down-tuned nu-metal guitar, worked quite well for me this time around, with the characteristic rhythmic drive of Carpenter’s compositions adding a welcome sense of urgency and forward momentum that such candy-coated sludge often lacked in the hands of the bands who popularised this questionable sound around the turn of the century.

I don’t want to build expectations for ‘Ghosts of Mars’ up too high in the midst of all this praise however. As stated, the film is certainly no gold-plated classic, but – and this is the key point – it doesn’t intend to be. If only more 21st century productions were content to set out with such modest, genre-constrained ambitions; perhaps more would succeed in fulfilling them half as well as Carpenter does here, and perhaps as a result us long-suffering viewers might have more fun of a weekend movie night. (Just sayin’.)

Sunday, 21 May 2017

The Adventures of John Carpenter
in the 21st Century: Intro.


 On Halloween night last year, my wife and I went to see John Carpenter and his band performing live at a large London concert venue. In spite of the obvious drawbacks that come with being inside a large London concert venue, we had a pretty great time.

Mr Carpenter stood at the front of the stage behind his midi keyboard, somehow looking more youthful than he did in interview footage filmed about ten years ago, and said helpful things like “MY NAME IS JOHN CARPENTER”, and “I MAKE HORROR MOVIES”, to much applause.

Sadly there was no Coupe De Villes material (boo), no Benson, Arizona, and I’m not sure ‘Assault of Precinct 13’ really benefited from a full band arrangement with rock guitars, but no matter - basically it was great. Actually, truth be told, I probably would have deemed it ‘great’ even if J.C. had just pulled up a comfy chair and taken it easy for a couple of hours, such was the pleasure I felt merely being in the presence of such a beloved cultural figure (and especially given that he seemed to be having a grand old time with the whole “being a rock star” business).

By complete coincidence, the following six months have found us watching or re-watching every significant directorial assignment that Carpenter has completed since the turn of the millennium, so, what more of an excuse do I need to write a bit for you about these oft-overlooked late era additions to his formidable legacy?

Three posts will be forthcoming over the next couple of weeks, conveniently scheduled to cover a stretch of time I’m spending out of the country and away from the computer. Have fun while I’m gone...

Sunday, 14 May 2017

The Beach of Falesá
by Dylan Thomas

(Panther, 1966)



In honour of the fact that today is apparently International Dylan Thomas Day, I thought I’d take the opportunity to pull another recent acquisition from my ever-growing paperback mountain for your enjoyment.

Though admittedly somewhat beyond the pulp fiction remit of this blog, Dylan Thomas remains one of my favourite writers. Growing up in West Wales, I was more or less force-fed his words from a young age, but since rediscovering his work in adulthood, both his prose and poems have become very dear to me.

Nonetheless, until I stumbled upon this volume on a day-trip to Brighton last month, I was entirely unaware that this most revered of twentieth century wordsmiths had ever penned “..a sinister, spine-chilling tale of superstition, black magic and evil” set upon an “exotic and inviting” South Seas island. An instant purchase, needless to say.

In order to maintain an open mind when I get around to reading it, I have deliberately carried out no research whatsoever into the history or perceived literary value of this work, other than to note that it is a re-working of a story of the same name by Robert Louis Stevenson. Likewise, the fact that this book’s copyright originally belonged to The Hearst Corporation (1959) before moving to ‘Viking Films Inc’ in 1963 is instructive, as is the fact that it barely stretches to 120 pages, despite the use of extra-large text and frequent and over-large paragraph/chapter breaks. Should be an interesting read.

I can’t say that Panther’s cover design strikes me as very appealing however. Contrary to the note I’ve scanned above, the woman pictured on the cover is most assuredly NOT a detail from Gauguin’s ‘Aha Oe Feii?’ aka ‘Are You Jealous?’ (1892), and I can only assume that this note was mistakenly retained from an earlier edition of the book. As to where this woman’s head and shoulders actually did come from, god only knows. I suspect they probably just clipped her out of a magazine or something.

So, not exactly a classic in design terms, but in literary terms…? Well, I hope to get around to it soon, so we’ll see.

Friday, 12 May 2017

Lost 0bjects.

For the past five years or so, I have been a reader of, and contributor to, the collective blog Found 0bjects, until recently located at http://found0bjects.blogspot.com/.

Unfortunately however, it has disappeared this week – presumably deleted or (here’s hoping) removed from view by an unknown person with admin rights.

Discussions between contributors have thus far drawn a blank re: establishing what happened, but, given that the blog was still regularly visited and intermittently updated, and that it contained a huge backlog of interesting content, it seems a shame for it to have been arbitrarily terminated.

If any readers here have any further info (or mere speculation) on the condition or whereabouts of Found 0bjects therefore, please let me know via the usual channels. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated, and if it turns out someone is holding it hostage – let us know, we can talk.

Thanks for your time.

Saturday, 6 May 2017

Soul Pulp:
Keller # 1: The Smack Man
by Nelson De Mille

(Manor Books, 1975)


Bloody hell. As if to demonstrate the scarcity of these ‘blaxploitation pulps’ in my collection, not to mention the frighteningly rabid conservatism prevalent in these ‘70s ‘men’s adventure’ series books, we’re already down to this one for our second (and thus far, final) Soul Pulp post.

Born in 1943, Nelson De Mille began writing series detective books from the mid ‘70s onward and is still writing thrillers at a prolific rate to this day.

Trying to determine exactly how many ‘Keller’ novels he turned out is however complicated by the fact that some if not all of these books seem to have first been published as outings for the author’s on-going character Joe Ryker, and were sometimes credited to his Jack Cannon pseudonym, except when they weren't. For reasons unknown, these Ryker books were then retooled as Keller books, with “Joe Keller” taking over as the protagonist.

From the late ‘80s onward, it seems that De Mille revised and republished all of these books as Ryker novels, and removed all mention of “Keller” from his bibliography, with most online sources following suit. Currently, some ‘Ryker’ books being sold on Amazon even have ‘Keller’ cover art attached to them, so… who knows. I have no idea what was going on with all that, to be honest.

Anyway, for what it’s worth, ‘The Smack Man’ usually seems to be listed as the fourth Ryker book, despite appearing here as the first Keller one.

As to the book itself…. well it seems to be yr standard trudging police procedural business, enlivened largely by frequent and bold use of expletives, detailed drug use and other such tough guy shit, with some rampant misogyny, bone-crunching violence and ugly racial stereotyping thrown in for good measure. As such, there's probably some good, cynical fun to be had here, if you're nasty enough to dig it.

For a pure dose of 1975, just check out this central card ad page and the text that surrounds it. Nice.

Tuesday, 2 May 2017

Soul Pulp:
Superspade # 2: Black is Beautiful
by B.B. Johnson

(Paperback Library, 1970)

As our previous post here touched upon the sparks that flew when the aesthetic of the early ‘70s ‘black action film’ hit the literary world, I thought I might as well pull a few choice volumes off the shelf and instigate a (sadly very short) mini-series looking at what I suppose we’re contractually obliged to term “blaxploitation pulp fiction”.

First up then, we’ve got one of my favourite recent finds, and to begin with a quick note on the cover art - I wash my hands of even trying to find an art credit for this one, but I quite like the effect the artist has created by leaving most of the secondary figures as pencil sketches, just filling in (presumably) the main protagonist and antagonist.

This gives it a kind of dynamism that sets it apart from yr average example of this early ‘70s ‘action collage’ style, although whether we should treat this as the result of deliberate artistic intent or merely “we need this at the printers by Friday goddamnit, put the fucking brush down and gimme what you got so far”, I will leave to your discretion.

Moving on the the book itself, it is notable I think that it appeared in the same year that the movie version of ‘Cotton Comes To Harlem’ set about gently lampooning the Black Power movement.

The Black Panther Party, needless to say, had been big news in the U.S.A. in 1969, with the organisation’s membership reaching an all time high and Panther-related violence making waves in Chicago, New York and L.A. Bobby Seale meanwhile was under arrest charged with ordering the murder of a suspected police informant, and December saw Fred Hampton gunned down in an exchange of fire with cops in Chicago.

Clearly the editors at Paperback Library wasted no time in exploiting the publicity surrounding these events to the max, and the enigmatic B.B. Johnson knocked out no less than five ‘Superspade’ novels for them in 1970, with one further book following in ’71.

Like Ossie Davis’s aforementioned movie, ‘Black is Beautiful’ obviously takes a pretty cynical view of Black Power, skirting the fringes of libel (“Ridge Hatchett”? - c’mon) as it “exposes” the allegedly self-serving con men behind the revolutionary rhetoric.

At least Davis (and Chester Himes before him) had the advantage of actually being black when they expressed such opinions however; though Paperback Library may have dug up the coolest author photo in recorded history for “B.B. Johnson”, I will eat my neckerchief if the individual behind these books was actually a gentleman of colour.

Skim reading a few chapters of ‘Black is Beautiful’ in fact, the authorial voice seems more suggestive of a middle-aged, white divorcee typewriter jockey mopping his brow with a gingham handkerchief in a back office somewhere, scouring the local black community paper to try to get the right lingo down whilst cursing his editors for not just letting him do another Bond rip-off. (The book eventually runs with the idea that the Panthers – sorry, ‘Jaguars’ – are a front for Castro’s Cuba incidentally, which puts my hypothetical author back on the more familiar ground of good ol' anti-commie paranoia.)

But, who am I to make such assumptions? Prove me wrong if you dare, and if it turns out ‘Superspade’ actually WAS a side-gig for Melvin Van Peebles or Isaac Hayes or somebody, I’ll be on neckerchief sandwiches all week.

Either way, I fear this book is no classic, but its value as a cultural artefact is mighty indeed.


Tuesday, 25 April 2017

200% Cotton.



(Penguin, 1974 / Cover by Paul May / John Claridge)


(Dell, date unknown [presumably 1970] / artwork taken from the movie poster by Robert McGinnis.)

Normally, I’d try to avoid putting two copies of the same book side by side on my shelves, but when I scoped the exquisite American Dell copy of Chester Himes’ ‘Cotton Came To Harlem’ - featuring artwork taken from the superb poster for the 1970 movie, courtesy of Robert McGinnis, as well as a rather nice font - I knew I had to make an exception and stack it up next to my Penguin copy.

I like the Penguin cover too, but the Dell really is a thing of beauty. I only wish my crappy scanner could do justice to the detail of McGinnis's illustration. And no, I’m not sure what “the wild new ‘inside’ movie” is supposed to mean either, but hey – that’s 1970 for you.

If you’re unfamiliar with Himes and his work, I’ll save you most of the hyperbole and simply state that I consider him one of the best American crime writers, period, and that this 1964 belter is a great place to start.

Need more info before committing? I’ll let the back office boys at Penguin and Dell step in to do their damnedest;


The inspiration for this post by the way comes from the fact that I recently got around to watching the aforementioned movie adaptation of ‘Cotton Comes To Harlem’, directed by Ossie Davis. It’s not a bad effort by any means, but whilst it keeps the events and characters of the novel pretty much intact, it falls well wide of the mark when it comes to actually capturing the tone of Himes’ writing.

True, the broadly comic elements and madcap chase antics prioritised by Davis’s film are certainly present in the novel, but the difference is, Himes managed to put them across whilst remaining hard-boiled as fuck, with a burning rage against those who seek to take advantage of the black, urban poor boiling under every page. The movie, essentially, does not.

Significantly downplaying the wanton bloodshed and sweaty, sexualised energy of Himes’ book, as well as the grittier elements of his social realism, the movie plays safe, largely limiting its social criticism to a rather mild lampooning of the contemporary Black Power movement. Meanwhile, the white establishment largely gets off scot-free, with Digger and Ed’s clueless superiors eventually rewarding them for their zany, crook-catching ways much has you’d expect at the conclusion of any light-weight buddy cop movie.

Such compromises though are perhaps inevitable when we consider that ‘Cotton..’ was a major studio venture released several years before ‘Shaft’ and ‘Superfly’ helped make the black action film a viable proposition at the U.S. box office. If Davis was required to take a somewhat whimsical approach to ghetto life and black criminality in order to get his project to the screen though, he and his collaborators nonetheless pulled out all the stops to deliver a eminently entertaining picture, full of solid performances, wild action scenes and evocative location shooting, all of which make it well worth checking out, even if it fails to hit the lofty heights of its source material.

What I liked about the film most of all though is that it reminded me of reading the book – and when the book in question is this good, that alone is enough to earn the movie a pass.


Sunday, 16 April 2017

Cinema Trips:
Free Fire
(Ben Wheatley, 2017)


In spite of all the plaudits director Ben Wheatley has received since his disturbing kitchen sink/crime/horror mash-up ‘Kill List’ first put his name on people’s lips in 2011, I must admit that I felt quite sorry for him following the release of ‘High Rise’ last year.

That film was his most ambitious and high profile project to date by quite some distance, and, suffice to say, many in the world of what I suppose I’ll have to take to grit my teeth and call “alternative culture” were on tenterhooks at the thought of a director like Wheatley helming a relatively big budget take on one of J.G. Ballard’s most uncompromising novels. But, as the reviews began to trickle in, enthusiasm (on my part at least) swiftly began to wane.

Having your big break-out movie savaged by mainstream critics who have missed the point or were predisposed to hate it is one thing - but imagine how Wheatley must have felt, clicking on links as they popped up in his feed and reading a succession of thoughtful, well-informed writers and bloggers presaging their articles by declaring their earnest admiration both for Ballard’s book and for Wheatley’s earlier films… then going on to regretfully express their opinion that he actually seemed to have made a bit of a hash of it.

I mean, that’s got to hurt pretty hard – especially when working in a segment of the film industry that still relies largely upon critical adulation and word of mouth to push punters through the gates.

After such a setback, one might have reasonably expected Wheatley to retreat into the shadows and spend some time licking his wounds, like previous contenders Richard Stanley or Neil Marshall before him. But, thankfully, our boy also seems keen to cultivate a reputation as one of the most determinedly prolific filmmakers around, and, though he doesn’t quite crank ‘em out as relentlessly as, say, Takashi Miike (which is probably for the best), he’s nonetheless back in cinemas, less than a year after ‘High Rise’ crashed and burned, with ‘Free Fire’.

And, by god, it’s a knock-out. The cinematic equivalent of straight jaw punch, seemingly designed to to instantly obliterate memories of his previous project’s over-reach and indulgence from the minds of potential future backers – which thankfully makes it a pretty great time for us as viewers, too.

If there is one overriding concern that can be seen to have emerged from Wheatley’s work to date, it is a fascination with the ugly results what occur when quote-unquote “tough guys” (violent or ego-driven men of one kind or another) are pushed into situations way behind their control, often in confined and treacherous environments; a kind of anti-Hawksian dynamic that sees the “men on the scene” heroism of the traditional genre movie uncomfortably shattered into a million pieces.

This thread can easily be traced through ‘Kill List’, ‘A Field in England’ (2013) and ‘High Rise’, and we can perhaps speculate that what most appealed to the director when conceiving ‘Free Fire’ was the chance to spend an entire movie taking this notion to joyously ridiculous new extremes – with “joyous” perhaps being the operative word.

The first thing to get out of the way here then is to make clear that, where previous Wheatley films have tended to be somewhat dour, unsettling experiences, their humour arising from toxic social awkwardness and their tone black in the extreme, ‘Free Fire’ by contrast represents perhaps the first time the director has dropped his patina of "seriousness" and delivered more of a MOVIE than a FILM, abandoning his exploration of aberrant psychology and grim social realism to instead reward his viewers with a guilt-free thrill ride of laughs, shocks and lovingly reiterated genre clichés – a fun flick in other words, if admittedly one predicated almost entirely upon mindless violence and the wanton infliction of pain… but, we’ll get to that.

Very much a ‘high concept’ joint as far as action/crime movies go, the set-up for ‘Free Fire’, in case you’ve not read about it elsewhere, goes as follows:

In the seemingly arbitrary setting of Boston, 1978, a pair of Irish Republican fighters, along with their American street punk accomplices, arrive at an abandoned dockside factory to meet with an eccentric white South African arms dealer, his ex-Black Panther partner and their own additional muscle. The ‘fixer’ who brokered the deal is also present, as is the pretty girl who initially put the various parties in touch (because hey, it’s a movie).

The meeting is tense to say the least. The assorted bad-asses do not get along too well, and trash talk and dick-swinging are just barely kept in check. Certain elements of the deal are not exactly what the Irish agreed upon, but nonetheless, ten crates of assault rifles are about to change hands, and the ex-Panther guy is counting the money.

We’re maybe twenty minutes or so into the movie by this point, when it becomes clear that one of the arms dealer’s driver/loader back up guys has a serious personal beef with one of the Irish’s local hired punks. Attempts to resolve this do not go well, and, before long, the shooting starts.

About seventy minutes later, the shooting ends.

Filling the interim is a single, real time, one-location action scene that I for one thought was a pretty extraordinary piece of filmmaking, but please don’t just take my word for it – if you think this whole business sounds like your idea of a good time, pick up a ticket to your nearest screening, and I’m confident you won’t be disappointed.

I’ve already read some reviews criticising ‘Free Fire’ as a characterless technical exercise, but to be honest I think such an accusation is way off target. True, we don’t get a lot of back story to fill us in on the participants’ lives outside of this single night of carnage, but neither do we need any. This is a minimal, self-contained action movie, and thus what Wheatley and his writing partner Amy Jump wisely give us is minimal, self-contained action movie characterisation, of the best possible kind.

We may not get any explanatory monologues or heart-string tugging childhood flashbacks (thank god), but, in the grand tradition of directors like Hawks and Siegel, we learn a huge amount about these characters simply through their body language and the way they relate to each other, as we find ourselves sizing them up as if we were a stranger blundering into the room, trying to figure who to stand behind and who to keep well away from.

Naturally, it is the actors who must carry the weight of putting these characterisations across, and the cast – comprising a great number of vaguely familiar people who have no doubt done sterling work in modern movies I never bothered to watch – do it absolutely beautifully. Just great ensemble stuff all round.

Surprisingly for a movie so entirely concerned with action, ‘Free Fire’ is in fact an extremely talky film (even if 30% of words spoken are probably either ‘fuck’ or ‘aargh’), somehow managing to allow its characters to speak and interact throughout, even as they are in the process of trying to inflict dreadful violence upon each other, making the film feel at times like some strange variant on the perennial ‘Old Dark House’ formula wherein everyone is continuously letting rip with high calibre weaponry.

I don’t know if I made it clear in my earlier synopsis that ‘Free Fire’ is as much a comedy as it is an action movie, but, well, it is, and it’s an extremely good comedy at that, with these exaggerated, barely believable tough guys bouncing off each other like champs, as Wheatley & Jump’s somewhat glib, wise-cracking dialogue prompts more genuine laughs and post-screening quote-offs than any film I’ve seen in recent memory.

(As the most broadly comic participant in the shooting match, Sharlto Copley as Vernon – the South African – proves particularly good value, coming on like a cross between Maurizio Merli in an Italian poliziotteschi and Will Ferrell in ‘Anchorman’, as the other characters’ wordlessly contemptuous “is this guy for real?!” responses to his clumsy antics provide a constant source of amusement.)

As the shooting begins, viewers will naturally find themselves weighing up the chances of the different characters, mentally placing their bets on who they expect to go down first, who they expect to be the last (wo?)man standing, and so on. But Wheatley’s masterstroke in ‘Free Fire’ I think comes from his rejection of the predictable, slasher style “picked off one by one” approach that could have seen the movie degenerate into a coldly mechanical multi-player death-match.

Instead, every one of the eight or nine major characters manages to stay alive until the gun fight’s final act, keeping all of them ‘in play’ even as they accumulate increasingly debilitating combinations of flesh wounds and limb damage, meaning we are eventually treated to the sight of the bullet-riddled combatants hobbling and dragging themselves across the increasingly battle-damaged sets, lapsing into occasional bouts of unconsciousness before an overload of pain and adrenalin propels them forward, increasingly unhinged, toward the resolution of their own sorry personal vendettas. This gradual collapse into entropy adds a sense of Godot-esque absurdity to proceedings that, needless to say, Wheatley absolutely relishes as things take on an air of desperate, baroque madness – a zero sum game as blackly pathetic as anything in his previous films.

Alongside all this, it almost goes without saying that ‘Free Fire’ is an astonishing achievement from a technical standpoint – a total master class in good action direction, fight choreography and editing, as Wheatley succeeds in cutting between the activities of up to ten independently motivated characters occupying different positions within the same cluttered set, keeping things coherent, suspenseful, gripping and visceral at all times, never bludgeoning us into insensibility the way many contemporary action directors tend to, and only allowing moments of chaos to temporarily break through when they represent the confused POV of characters for whom events are simply moving too fast to take in.

Given that the bulk of the film represents a single, real time sequence shot over the course of what I’d imagine must have been many weeks, simply maintaining continuity through different shots must have been a Herculean task, requiring the filmmakers to keep track not only of the locations and sight-lines of all the characters in relation to each other, but also of the spread of props, cover, weapons, ammunition and so forth across the set, not to mention the ever-multiplying injuries and damage to clothes, etc etc. I mean, seventy solid minutes of fight scene must have been a tough gig for all concerned, but I think the efforts of the rarely heralded continuity staff deserve a particular round of applause on this one.

I realise that official ‘making of..’ featurettes for contemporary films are generally dull as ditch water, but I would genuine love to find out about how they went about making the technical side of ‘Free Fire’ work as well as it does, and look forward to watching any such material available when I purchase the film on blu-ray – as I inevitably will, on the very day it is released more than likely.

In fact, it is difficult for me to fully express the extent to which I enjoyed ‘Free Fire’. I genuinely think it is one of the best movies I’ve seen in years.

If I found any fault with the film, it arose mainly from the occasionally shaky application of the period setting; some of the dialogue and reactions assigned to Brie Larson's character in particular seem decidedly contemporary, and the Tarantino-esque 'needle drop' soundtrack also gets a bit heavy handed in places (it's hard not to cringe for instance when some Ayler-esque free jazz bursts in to accompany a sequence in which the film's only black character goes on the rampage).

As a marriage between the pure visual kineticism of a good action movie and the thespian chops of a good, multi-hander stage play though, ‘Free Fire’ works brilliantly, and if auteurists or future thesis-writers – ever sniffy about the idea of films actually being fun - may not wish it to be considered as a contender for Wheatley’s best film with regard to the realisation of his own personal vision and so forth, I nonetheless foresee it remaining my own favourite amongst his movies, by quite some distance and for quite some time to come.