|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 20, 2017 9:26:36 GMT
When I watched it on TCM it was introduced with the idea that there were rival versions and the producer and the director didn't agree on whether or not the demon should be shown explicitly on screen. The version that was shown on the channel was the one that included the stellar special effects. Excellent work for sure, but I could see the argument for excluding the demon, at least perhaps, until the end of the film so that it could maintain some mystery. But it certainly looked excellent and very impressive. Overall, with that controversy aside, it was a really enjoyable film and one of the best horror movies of the 50s, and undoubtedly some of the best effects of any genre movie of that era. I hate it when the monster is shown too early in the film. It takes away from the scariness. If you go to YouTube you can find unused scenes from "Alien" in which the perpetrator is seen very clearly prior to Brett and Lambert being done away with. Fortunately they were not used in the finished film (but as a side note I think the last words between Dallas and Ripley should have been included). My father took me to see "Jaws" in the theater and my mother took me to the rerelease a few years later. When the perpetrator got into the pond and ate the lifeguard all you saw was a quick and blurry underwater view of him. Later when the film was shown on TV with deleted scenes they showed the shark with its head out of the water eating the lifeguard. All wrong! IMO opinion the audience should not see that until the scene where Brody is bitching to Quint about running the chum line while Hooper drives the boat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2017 19:59:47 GMT
The writer was also on the Hollywood blacklist so he had to go to England to find work. The author was M.R. James who was a professor at Cambridge University. Perhaps you meant the scriptwriter. I like the film but I was already familiar with the original story which I like even better.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Dec 26, 2017 20:14:05 GMT
The author was M.R. James who was a professor at Cambridge University. Perhaps you meant the scriptwriter. I like the film but I was already familiar with the original story which I like even better. I meant the scriptwriter.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Dec 26, 2017 21:10:38 GMT
That claim keeps coming up (also in the 1974 book Classics of the Horror Film). The demon was supposed to be shown to the audience so they know that the threat facing Holden is real when he is passed the parchment. But either Tourneur felt they showed it too much or later on decided they shouldn't have shown it at all-but it was explicit in the script that the demon be real. The writer was also on the Hollywood blacklist so he had to go to England to find work. While making the film Andrews met the Queen and told her he was making a film on witchcraft. If I’m not mistaken (and I don’t have Classics of the Horror Film in front of me to check), Everson actually goes out of his way to debunk (or, at least, try to debunk) that story. He also calls the Demon “so much of a lulu” ( ) that he lives up to the description, n’est-ce pas? Anyhoo, I love that the Demon is real, but I agree with meandmybigmouth that seeing him in the very beginning does take some of the fun out of it. The point is that Andrews does not believe, and the viewer should not be sure what to believe until the end. After that opening, the whole picture goes for ambiguity (as Tourneur’s Cat People and I Walked with a Zombie also did)—but why, if we already know for certain that he’s real? With that said, up until our first viewing of the Demon, that opening is marvellous—one of the great openings in horror-dom, in fact—and the whole picture is indeed a favorite of mine, in spite of those criticisms.
|
|
|
Post by RiP, IMDb on Dec 26, 2017 21:34:46 GMT
A classic small gem that PROVES you DON'T need GORE (although I still enjoy gore) to be EFFECTIVE. One of my all-time favorite horror films.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Dec 26, 2017 21:38:09 GMT
Everson did show the demon in the COTHF entry (in fact, its the first time I saw it), however maybe he repeated the claim that Tourneur was against it from the start? I'll have to find my book.
But, as to whether the demon needs to be shown at all at the beginning--I think the fireball needs to be seen at least. Why would a skeptic be so upset as to kill himself in an accident if he cant be sure of what he sees? He tells Karswell its real, he's seen it. I dont think there is anything in Karswell's behavior to suggest he was a master at manipulating skeptics into hysteria. With Holden he passes him the parchment without Holden knowing, and yet right away Holden starts hallucinating. How could that be due to autosuggestion? Holden wasn't even aware he had the parchment!
And then what about the seance? There's too many things that happen outside of ambiguity (and as I said, the book on the making of the film is explicit that the demon was meant to be shown on screen, Tourneur knew this when he signed on).
I think they showed the demon too much, and maybe that was Tourneur's original objection? I need to check the book again. The author is doing an updated version of it BTW.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Dec 26, 2017 23:03:43 GMT
Primemovermithrax Pejorative Now I’m wishing I had Everson’s seminal guide in front of me… My library has an excellent copy, but I’ve got to break down and buy my own one of these days. With that said, I did find someone else’s comments on it: Anyway, I see where you’re coming from, but let me note that I’m not saying that I want the film to be ambiguous in conclusion. I’m perfectly happy that there is, quite obviously, a real monster. My concern is ambiguity in set-up, a Tourneurian principle that we also see in Cat People and (most purely) in I Walked with a Zombie. Let’s take the Demon’s first appearance, for example, and that ol’ fireball: we get cuts to the Demon, but they’re not exactly necessary, as all we need here is Maurice Denham’s reaction to said monster. What does that mean? It means that Dana Andrews is gradually convinced of the monster’s reality, bringing the audience along with him on this journey from disbelief to conviction. I think that’s a great benefit in any horror flick (even, say, Renfield’s journey in Dracula, or the build-up to the Monster in Frankenstein). Just some offhand thoughts, of course.
|
|