Fairground settings can be deliciously creepy. Whether you find them in fiction (one of the best examples of using the fairground for macabre purpose is Rad Bradbury) or in cinema (try 1967’s Torture Garden from the horror studio Amicus). Even the most cursory of searches will result in other films using fairgrounds, the circus or bizarre museums for their settings. House of Wax (1953) with Vincent Price, Circus of Horrors (1960) or perhaps Circus of Fear (1966). However, there are no truly memorable films using the abandoned carnival as a setting, a place where you really really wouldn’t want to go. Especially alone on a dark night. At least I thought that. This was until I saw Carnival of Souls.
As cult films go, Carnival of Souls is very hard to find, so I was surprised when I discovered that I owned a copy on DVD. Made in 1962 by Herk Harvey, it is an early addition to the American low budget horror genre, a more successful film in the same ilk being Night of the Living Dead. However it’s possibly incorrect to label it as a horror film at all; this is just an incredibly creepy film. It’s scary yet there’s little horror in it. It’s memorable because it is so odd.
The film has a basic premise. The unusually named Candice Hilligoss (Mary Henry) survives what looks like a pretty fatal car crash. Although visibly unscathed, there’s something a little strange about her. The frightened and distant look in her eye, perhaps, the magnetic pull an abandoned funfair appears to be having on her… it’s inevitible what’s going to happen in Carnival of Souls but that’s the fun of the ride. The jumps come in the predicted places, although you may find yourself jumping a little more than you expected.
Candice works as a church organist, allowing Harvey to use the organ for one of the most effective soundtracks you’ll hear. The music isn’t particularly pleasant, but it’s highly original, and the director gets the best effect when the music actually stops. The eerie silences in this film cleverly raise the tension, and it is a very tense film indeed. Candice takes a room in a boarding house and it pursued by a fellow lodger called John. He’s a bit of a creep, descending upon her in the morning with half empty bottles of whiskey, but continues with his painstaking advances even though this woman can only offer a vacant stare or two. (At one point he exclaims That’s just what I need! Get mixed up with some girl who’s off her rocker!)
The scenes with John provide some comic relief for what is essentially, as he predicts, scenes of Candice going off her rocker. Spectacularly. She begins to see the same pale faced man wherever she goes, driving in her car, in her room and memorably in one scene in a Doctor’s consultancy. The first appearances are very fleeting, and the image above is the last of several attempts I made to catch an appropriate still of the film.
Eventually Candice is drawn to the abandoned carnival, where the film wraps up effectively. There’s a final twist that, although not particularly surprising, is still suitably shocking. And the creepy faces blend so well with the organ music that it gives further weight to the argument that low budget films are often the best.
By way of a taster, here’s the original trailer:
As the good man says, you can’t afford to miss it…
There is a type of film particularly suited to late night viewing. Late night winter viewing, where the viewer might be alone, and where the wind may be rattling at the window. The window is comfortably locked, and the film’s imagined terrors remain harmless, at least until the viewer becomes a little too engrossed. Night of the Demon is one such film.
Night of the Demon is a brilliantly scary movie. Some may try to convince you that it’s the scariest movie ever made. It could very well have been, although there are two things that let it down. The first is the casting of Dana Andrews in the lead role, who is awful. Demon is a British movie, and I’m all for American stars cast in the lead with a host of good supporting English actors around them, but why Dana Andrews? He sleepwalks through this film, at times no different from the characters stuck in real hypnotic trances. For a man with a curse on him who has three days to live, he’s a little too relaxed about the situation. Especially as the other people in the film who have been exposed to such curses are raving and screaming (one of them even jumps out of a window).
The other problem with Demon is the one that most reviews tend to mention. The demon itself (pictured below) is exposed very early in the film, which does tend to spoil some of the suspense surrounding what exactly the curse is all about. The early demon sighting was also against the wishes of the director Jacques Tourneur, and the film’s producer decided to tag the monster on. But after seeing the film again I decided that the demon sighting isn’t wholly the mistake that it’s reported to be. It’s still scary (I wouldn’t want him around on a dark night, even if the windows are locked) and does whip you up into a state of tension that gets you through the slow opening scenes that follow. It also sticks in the mind, even if you have seen countless films like this.
It is essential to mention that Night of the Demon is based on a short story by M.R. James called Casting the Runes. The film more or less follows the same story, which is about one man’s attempt to debunk the occult beliefs and activities of another. John Holden (Andrews) sets out to expose Julian Karswell (Niall MacGuinness) who is the leader of an apparant demonic cult. Karswell tries to warn Holden off, but he’ll have nothing of it and is eventually beset by a curse. Holden learns that he has been passed a small “parchment”, which he must return to Karswell before the time is up in order to reverse the curse. The film differs from the James story in that it leans on hypnosis as a theme. There’s an excellent scene where a man accused of murder is hypnotised to reveal what really happened to him, and another very creepy episode involving a séance.
The supporting cast are all excellent and make up for the dullness of Andrews (and the female interest Peggy Cummings, who’s also rubbish). Niall MacGuinness dominates the movie as the villain Karswell. He is simply brilliant, one of the best screen nasties of all time. With his urbane manner and his demonic goatee, he covers his true evil with a veneer of seedy politeness. The film borrows one scene from the James story although it does change it slightly. This is where Karswell is hired to perform magic tricks as a children’s entertainer. Even though he’s performing white magic he’s still darkly menacing. Maurice Denham and Brian Wilde (best known for mild mannered comedy performances in Porridge and Last of the Summer Wine) are also excellent as doomed demon victims. Reginald Beckwith is also good as the medium Mr Meek (pictured), and the cry it’s in the trees … it’s coming! was poached by Kate Bush almost thirty years later to open her song Hounds of Love.
Made in 1957, this is a British horror that predates Hammer films (just) so it’s more of a throwback to the old Universal pictures, and kind of marks the turning point of the genre. If Hammer had got their hands on this instead I would imagine Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee in the two roles, with Lee most likely as Karswell. Night of the Demon is a well crafted film, with the last five minutes or so being some of the tensest in cinema. This is where Holden must return the parchment to Karswell in order to survive. Your hair will stand on end, especially if you don’t lock that window.
Ha! That disgusted you a little, didn’t it? I caught that little flicker of revulsion on your face. Now you’re trying to cover it up, but you don’t fool me with that oh-so-confident look, as though you knew every secret under Heaven.
In the 1990s, Clive Barker’s Hellraiser films became something of an obsession with me and the guy I shared a flat with at the time. The first 1987 film is one of my horror favourites, and I’ve recently read with some interest that Barker is currently working on a remake, no doubt utilising the developments in CGI to make his creations more horrific, although the most chilling aspect of the films was Doug Bradley’s performance as Pinhead. More disturbing, the actor is now currently reduced to advertising something on the back of buses in my home town, his huge head often ahead of me in the traffic. But sadly minus the pins.
So although he’s always sat somewhere in the back of my mind, it’s taken me ten years to start showing an interest in anything new by Barker. His latest novel, Mister B. Gone, follows the exploits of a particularly loathsome demon in 15th Century England, a backdrop that reminded me at times of Ken Russell’s film The Devils. Human depravity, torture and execution, the actions of mortal man put anything demonic firmly into context. The novel is narrated by Jakabok Botch, mysteriously imprisoned in the pages of the book that he constantly demands that the reader burn. But of course the reader reads on.
Barker’s premise is preposterous, but it is a tribute to his skill as a writer that he manages to just about pull it off. His prose is mostly excellent and so is his skill as a narrator, so no matter how incredible the story becomes Jakabok, rather than enticing you to burn the book, entices you to read on. But be warned; Mister B. Gone does contain some sickening passages of pure unadulterated horror. Although anyone familiar with Barker’s books or films will not be surprised. Or disappointed.
Clive Barker has many similarities with Neil Gaiman in how he uses the foundation that the supernatural world exists in tandem with our own; this is a fact that the reader must accept before they can appreciate how both writers can make the two worlds coexist. You just have to adjust to this seamless integration to appreciate both of these authors. Where Gaiman plunders fairytales and familiar sounding ghost stories to rework in his original style, and often bring them into the modern world, Barker uses the recognisable presence of Hell and The Devil and turns it loose on early society, one that firmly believed in the presence of the demonic, to work his wonders. It’s a conceit that works far better than I would have predicted, with Barker creating a compelling narrator who uses the age old trick of suddenly reminding the reader that they are enjoying something quite horrifying. The novel is peppered with many nudges to the reader similar in flavour to my opening quote.
I was glad when I finished Mister B. Gone, but I didn’t want to burn it. But I also don’t think Clive Barker is really my cup of tea any more; perhaps I won’t find Hellraiser films entertaining any more either… he does what he does very well – but ultimately you have to decide whether or not you need or will appreciate fully what he provides.
This is a segment from the 1972 film Tales from the Crypt, featuring Joan Collins as a murderous housewife who gets her just desserts. Silly and suitably seasonal.
28 Weeks Later is the much anticipated sequel to the 2002 film 28 Days Later. Danny Boyle’s original is very hard to follow, mainly due to the outstanding opening scene where the hero Jim (Cillian Murphy) wakes up in hospital and then proceeds to stagger through an eerily deserted London. Westminster Bridge with litter fluttering in the wind, an overturned bus or two. Countless post-9/11 photos plastered everywhere and pleas for the missing.
What’s going on? A rather nasty virus has taken just four weeks to turn everyone into crazed zombies who have learnt the neat trick of moving in fast motion. But don’t turn away just yet. We don’t see these movie monsters until the shots of an empty and silent city are fully milked. And brilliantly executed it is too. How did they manage to film this? How were thay allowed to? Getting up early on a Sunday morning I suppose, and there is the feeling of dawn breaking on a hopeless and bleak new day that comes across very well. New director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo and his crew must have risen really early as the deserted London theme is explored brilliantly in 28 Weeks Later. Tower Bridge, Docklands, The Gherkin are all revealed in their abandoned nakedness.
We get to see a lot more of a startling different and quite beautiful London. In this film, the area has been closed off to starve out the virus, American troops now patrolling nervously as the capital is slowly repopulated. Why isn’t London used more for film locations? I suppose because in the past it hasn’t been done very imaginatively, and I’m thinking of the red bus movies of the 1960s, where producers thought that a red bus appropriately positioned would get bums on seats. Red routemasters = swinging London. Films still continue to use red buses lazily. I loved Atonement, but there is appallingly unimaginative use of red buses to try to convey wartime in London. Come on, at least the bus has to be on its side to be worth including.
Perhaps it’s just too difficult and too costly to film in the smoke; it’s true that Bristol often serves for a more convenient stand-in for film and tv locations. But when it’s done well it can be breathtaking, and another of my favourite recent films is the dystopian gem Children of Men, which uses London to great effect.
Buses aside, 28 Weeks Later doesn’t try to change anything that was good about the original. It uses the same excellent incidental music and the zombies still run in their fast motion style. As executive producer, Danny Boyle is clearly steering his original vision in new and interesting directions. A theme that’s introduced is that the virus has mutated; in rare cases people can become only carriers of the disease. Which unfortunately leads towards a rather unwelcome outbreak…
What was best about this film, and what made it surpass the original for me, was how it played on real human fears and weaknesses. Donald (Robert Carlysle) abandons his wife to the crazed zombies of the English countryside at the beginning of the film. There’s no question about this; he runs away and leaves her to die to save himself. He’s a coward. He has to live with his guilt and then has to lie to his children about what happened when they are reunited. He tells them that he saw their mother die, although in reality he didn’t hang around for long enough to find out. Standing up to the opening of the first film that I admire so much, it’s an attention grabbing and gripping start.
Carlysle, who you might expect to be the hero of the film, becomes something of a despicible character, and it’s his skill as an actor that makes it so believable. I still asked myself the question would I have run too? And this is what makes 28 Weeks Later a great movie. There’s real and very personal horrors that might catch up with us.
I doubt if it’s over yet though. As Fresnadillo is a Spanish gentleman, and as we get a glimpse of Paris right at the end, I suspect there will be a Euro flavoured film coming soon to complete the trilogy. 28 Months Later?
