Night of the Demon.

Review #2459: Night of the Demon.

Cast: 

Dana Andrews (Dr. John Holden), Peggy Cummins (Joanna Harrington), Niall MacGinnis (Dr. Julian Karswell), Athene Seyler (Mrs. Karswell), Liam Redmond (Professor Mark O'Brien), Peter Elliott (Professor Kumar), Maurice Denham (Professor Harrington), Reginald Beckwith (Mr. Meek), Rosamund Greenwood (Mrs Meek), and Brian Wilde (Rand Hobart) Directed by Jacques Tourneur (#998 - I Walked with a Zombie, #1898 - Cat People, #2280 - The Leopard Man)

Review: 

"The real horror is to show that we all live unconsciously in fear. Many people suffer today from a fear that they don't begin to analyze and which is constant. When the audience is in the dark and recognizes its own insecurity in that of the characters of the film, then you can show unbelievable situations and be sure that the audience will follow. For another thing, people love to be afraid."

Naturally, this was a movie loosely based on an old short story. M. R. James wrote a handful of stories for More Ghost Stories of an Antiquarty in 1911, and "Casting the Runes" was one of them. Charles Bennett had the rights to the story and thus made a screenplay ("The Haunted") that loosely took inspiration from the short story. He sold the story to producer Hal E. Chester (much to Bennett's regret, because he later found that people like Robert Taylor and Dick Powell were interested in being in the film*) who ended up making changes that resulted in him getting a co-credit, although it was really blacklisted writer Cy Endfield who crafted significant parts of the screenplay. For whatever reason, the movie was called "Curse of the Demon" in the States (often with a double feature pairing with 20 Million Miles to Earth) with a runtime of 82 minutes that cut certain sequences from the original 96-minute cut. This was the last horror movie Tournier made as a director (famously, he apparently rejected the term "horror movies", stating once he made "films on the supernatural" because he believed in it). Tourneur was involved in the project because Ted Richmond (the producer of his prior film Nightfall) gave Chester a recommendation, which in turn got Tournier to show the script to Andrews.  Apparently, the demon was a contentious aspect of the movie for the filmmakers. Hal E. Chester and his co-producer wanted to show the demon at the start and end of the film, but Tourneur and Bennett weren't happy about it, with the latter being once quoted as saying that if Chester was up at his driveway, he would shoot him (a book about the making of the film by Tony Earnshaw contends including the demon was planned from the start anyway). Tournier claimed that the movie was "ruined" by showing the demon from the beginning, stating that he shot just one scene with the idea of a demon in the cloud sequence. Tourneur did five further movies as a director: The Fearmakers (1958), The Giant of Marathon (1959), Timbuktu (1959), The Comedy of Terrors (1964), and City Under the Sea (1965).

Let's get one thing out of the way: of course you show the damn demon on screen. This was the 1950s man, you can't go with the power of suggestion and "maybe" seeing something, at a certain point you're going to do something when "Demon" is in the film title (showing a cloud only for a movie like this would be silly, arguably). At any rate, what we have here is a solid little movie, managing to evoke a sense of dread through mood and atmosphere, one that arguably is Tournier's best horror movie when compared to Cat People (why anyone would reject the term horror movie is beyond me). It lurks in the shadow of noir that gradually makes you wonder just what may be beyond what eyes and ears can sense. It helps that Andrews (who apparently wasn't a fan of Chester either) is the right type of rigid for this role, one whose skepticism can only come from a place of flustered vulnerability that we understand that some can look mystery in the face and see a bottomless pit. Sure, we know there's something lurking beyond the wind rustling, but it helps to have a movie that is patient in the push-and-pull of belief and devotion. MacGinnis is practically the same in that regard when it comes to vulnerability, mainly because he is not merely a mad magician but is instead one who is consumed by a force greater than one could imagine, one who could play tricks for the youth but instead plays tricks on himself and those around him. The rest of the cast do a pretty fine job in that usual dignity of a horror movie that isn't about body counts or creature effects (the demon does look good, in close-up anyway) but instead of the terror of imagination going awry. My one little gripe is with the ending, specifically the very last scene. After spending a whole movie getting his ideas about the supernatural all mixed up, complete with seeing a cloud of smoke and something that may be a demon inflict fear on someone else for the climax...he doesn't go to inspect the body, instead leaving with the girl. I don't know man, I know these movies love to make sure to set the guy up with the girl at the end but c'mon, some things really are better to know. In general, what we have is a pretty neat movie involving the power of belief and what comes from those who are engulfed by it to subservience and those who know exactly where the road leads. It's one of those esteemed old movies that definitely deserve a look, that's for sure.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Oh who cares about Taylor and Powell when you have Dana Andrews?

Animal Farm.

Review #1653: Animal Farm.

Cast:

Maurice Denham (Voices of All Animals) and Gordon Heath (Narrator) Produced and Directed by Joy Batchelor and John Halas.

Review:

Being the first director to do a British animated feature is interesting, but to also note the contributions of Joy Batchelor in short films with her husband John Halas is just as clear to mention. Born in Watford, she expressed an interest in drawing from a young age, and she drove herself to earn a scholarship to the Watford School of Art (while also having an offer from Slade), but she desired to help her family while working in art without teaching. Her first line of work in animation would come in London for the studio of Dennis Connelly, although it did not last too long due to studio closure. After a while spent doing side work, she found an ad looking for animators, for which the man running it was Janos Halasz [born János Halász]. He had a studio in Hungary before having the chance for another one to set up in London. They would spend considerable time together over the years in various fields of art, such as freelance studiowork before being brought on to do work for an advertising agency with J. Walter Thompson in commercials, information films, and war propaganda. In 1940, Batchelor and Halas would marry. Halas and Batchelor would continue on with animation after Animal Farm (which while not a success at the time found a following later on), working on commissions and occasional work in television. Batchelor would retire in 1974 from filmmaking due to arthritis, although she would teach animation for years afterwards before her death in 1991 (Halas would work all the way until his death in 1995, having done six decades of animation work).

Animal Farm is technically the first British animated feature. Handling Ships (1945), a stop-motion animated film in color, was created for use in the British Admirality for training in the Royal Navy in 1945, but it was never formally released in theaters (despite a selection at the Cannes Film Festival; Halas felt it had limited appeal to audiences anyway) - it was directed by Alan Crick and Halas, but Batchelor was involved in the production as was the case with several projects (the two were involved with creating war information + propaganda shorts). For that film, the goal was simple: an instructional film made to guide one on piloting ships, navigation, and maneuverability. The feature was successful enough for another commissioned feature by the offices that led to Water for Firefighting (take one guess what it was about), but Animal Farm came after each and found a way to release in the theater...with its own interesting circumstances. For one, it was a project of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), who funded the film as a tool of anticommunism (Halas and Batchelor however did not know this). One could go down the rabbit home about the story behind the CIA's plot for friendly anti-commie films for the masses, complete with a CIA head who would later be involves with Watergate...but here we are. The film is adapted from the 1945 novella of the same name by George Orwell (for which the film calls a "memorable fable" in its opening credit). Interestingly enough, I remember this as one of the first stories I read while in high school, since I found it on the shelf of my freshman English class (for which I carefully used spare time to read it gradually). There were several writers in the adaptation: Batchelor, Halas, Joseph Bryan III, Borden Mace, and Lothar Wolf were given credit for story development while Laurence Heath and Philip Stapp were left un-credited. In addition to directing, Batchelor and Halas also co-produced the film. Interestingly enough, the same year that this was released, the BBC would do a made-for-TV adaptation of Orwell's seminal novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (done one year after an American live production, and a feature film would follow in 1956 - which was also a tool of the CIA). Both Orwell works would have another adaptation several decades later (Animal Farm in 1999 on television while the other was fittingly enough done in 1984).

The voices are not what I expected - for one, I assumed there would be more than one voice for the animals. Denham made his mark in acting for six decades beginning in 1934, starting with radio comedy and soon live television broadcasts that would suit him well for a variety of roles in British media. As for Heath, he was an American that had started in radio with New York's WMCA station before making his debut on Broadway with Deep Are the Roots in 1945. He would also do acting across the pond, such as live performances for BBC Television such as for a production of The Emperor Jones. So here we are with a film that is about animals seizing the means of revolution for their farm and all that comes with it with strife that reflects human nature...and a certain change from those who read it. It might not be a Disney production, but they sure do sing...in animal noises, for which you get to see an old pig die in the middle of it. Between that and animal cries in the first eleven minutes, one gets a pretty strange picture to start with. It actually isn't much of a talking animal picture, as the narration is the real guiding force with occasional noises, with a carefully controlled runtime of barely over an hour that makes it a curious venture, one that had to suit the powers that be alongside audiences (of sorts, since while it wasn't a major success at release it gradually found a following in later years). So....how about that ending? The novella had an ironic ending, one that talked about the nature of equality within animals and humans - in other words, the more things change, the more they stay the same, particularly when the rules keep moving. For the film, whether because of producer influence or director mindset, the ending is lighter in tone, ending on the opposite tone that will certainly not please those who desire faithful works (mostly) to the letter (for example, that key moment that ends the novella occurs just a few minutes before the climax takes place). For one thing, it is Benjamin the donkey (who never actually talks in the film, as compared to his gloom in the book) that takes action against Napoleon the pig (strangely enough, the donkey has been thought of as representing a variety of social classes within its allegory, but the big theory is that there is a little of Orwell himself within the character). Of course, if one thinks a fable needs an appropriate ending, it will be exactly the kind of thing one expects, so the decision is up to you. Of course, if you really want to see an adaptation that evidently messes up the adaptation even worse, you could try the 1999 TV adaptation, which worked with detailed effects and a cast of well-known actors (at least for Hallmark Films)...and completely missed the ending with a depiction of a self-destructing dictatorship that leads to a new group of humans coming into the farm (simply put, that is far more unforgivable given that this was literally 1999, so imagine spending millions of dollars with name actors and looking like a complete failure next to a modest little animated film that only has two voices). One wonders how Orwell would have felt about this creative side-step, if only because the full extent of who exactly funded it would only come out decades after that fact. As a whole, Animal Farm is a nice accomplishment, one that carries its points on the sleeve with decent results - perhaps it isn't exactly a great animated film for its era, but Halas and Batchelor manage well with a curious effort in adaptation that finds a balance in its fable without being sunk by its climax entirely.

Next Time: A film for the numbers...four different versions....two directors...it can only be from American International Pictures with Blood Bath (1966).

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.