Horrorfest 6: Carnival of Souls (1962)

As I was watching CARNIVAL OF SOULS, I kept thinking, "Where did this movie COME from?"

So, I read up on it. It was directed by a guy named Herk Harvey, and was the only feature film he ever made. But, if you look up his filmography, you'll see he's responsible for a huge list of short films, all of the educational and industrial variety. Turns out he made CARNIVAL OF SOULS over a couple weeks he took off of work. It initially flopped in 1962, gained a following on late night television over the next few decades, and was restored and re-released in the 90s.

I guess it's no surprise that such a weird movie has such an odd story behind it.

CARNIVAL OF SOULS is one of those flicks where you're never really sure exactly what's going on as it unfolds. When it ends, it supplies some vague answers that also open up some additional questions.

The movie stars Candace Hilligoss as Mary Henry, a young woman who is the sole survivor of a terrifying car crash. Soon after the accident, she moves to Utah to take up work as an organist at a church. She moves into a rooming house where the only other border is a dude who won't stop asking her out on dates and won't take a clue that she's not interested.

Funny thing is, she doesn't seem much interested in anything. She basically shrugs off the fact that she miraculously surived a devestating accident. Despite the fact that she works in a church, she just views it as any old job and doesn't put any stock in religion. She spurns the advances of her neighbor and at one point admits she doesn't really care to ever be with anyone, at all.

But, her detachment is somewhat deceptive, because there is something going on inside her head. Not long after the accident, she begins to see startling images of what appear to be undead, zombie-like beings who seem to be following her. She also seems to get lost as she plays the organ, improvising not-so-church-like dirges and even hearing non-stop organ music on the radio. She's inexplicably drawn to an abandoned carnival pavilion and fairground on the edge of town and suffers through periods during which she seems to become invisible and no one around her acknowledges her presence.

Is she dead? Is she alive? Is she dreaming? Is she awake? Is it a little bit of everything? It's hard to tell, and that's one of the movie's strengths.

The movie isn't so much about what happens in the plot as it is about the unsettling mood it sets and the memorable images it dreams up (or nightmares up). Because of this, the film occasionally verges on the side of an experimental art film. But, you sense the filmmakers are sincere, so you never feel like the movie's trying to pull one over on you, and it avoids the level of exploitation.

My mind is probably drawing causal connections where they might not exist, but it seems fitting that the director, Herk Harvey, was primarily an educational and industrial filmmaker. Many of the educational and industrial films I've seen from the 50s and 60s tend to have a detached, creepy quality to them -- lots of people going through every day motions in a robotic, emotionless way, trying to relate to the viewer but not quite getting there. The same could be said about CARNIVAL OF SOULS, but in this case, it helps serve the tone of the movie.

The movie's about a woman who doesn't seem to fit in anywhere, who is going through the motions of life but who is not doing a very good job convincing everyone that she cares to be alive. In fact, she's disturbed by the prospect of life and constantly intruded upon by death.

Horrorfest 5: The Phantom of the Opera (1925)

Now we get to a movie I've seen before.

My first viewing of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA was a memorable one. The Oregon Symphony was playing live accompaniment to this silent classic on the big screen one Halloween night back when I was in high school, so my parents were kind enough to buy me a ticket and take me to the Schnitz to see it go down.


A few years before, the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical had gone through Portland. I didn't get to see it at the time (I saw it years later in Toronto) but I was familiar with the story from my childhood monster books and fascinated with the musical. That summer my family traveled to Europe, including Paris, so we made sure to stop by the Opera House. We didn't go on an official tour, but we did wander around a little, and came across Box 5, famous as the box the Phantom haunted. Just our luck, a couple employees happened to be in the area and let us in. We didn't get to see much of the auditorium because they were in the middle of a lighting test, so it was very dark, but I can say I got to stand in the Phantom's box, box 5.

Watching this film so closely back to back with THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME is interesting. They have a ton of similarities. Both of them are about tragic, deformed characters who dwell in Parisian landmarks and fall in love with beautiful women who will never love them. Both films star Lon Chaney as the grotesque lead, and both films co-star Norman Kerry as the boring romantic competition. There's even a scene towards the end of PHANTOM in which the title character is feeling an angry mob on the streets of Paris and passes right by the very same cathedral set from HUNCHBACK.

I think PHANTOM is the stronger of the two films, though maybe not by much. It wastes less time dwelling on the side characters, of whom there are less to waste time on. The Phantom is on screen a lot more than the Hunchback, and drives a lot more of the action. The Hunchback is a more sympathetic character since he's mostly misunderstood and not exactly the evil genius that the Phantom is, but the Phantom's outright villainy is more interesting to watch. The makeup is also better: here, Chaney's face appears a little more flesh and less set in stone. It looks less like a mask and more like a real face. The one thing that Hunchback has over Phantom is the glorious Notre Dame set itself. The Paris Opera House set comes close, but doesn't quite reach the majesty of the cathedral from the previous film.

The most famous scene in the film is the one where Christine, the young opera singer who the Phantom has been secretly mentoring and falling in love with, tears the Phantom's mask off and reveals his hideous face. The scene can still shock, even though it's so famous that you know it's coming before you even start the movie rolling.

An equally effective scene occurs a few minutes later when the Phantom crashes a masquerade ball. The masquerade ball sequence is shot in a primitive form of Technicolor, so it stands out from the rest of the black and white and/or tinted footage, especially thanks to the Phantom's scarlet-red costume offset with a skull mask almost as hideous as his actual face.

I made mention of the Phantom's villainy earlier. To be sure, he's selfish, psychotic, and murderous. But, he has lived a life of exile due to his deformities and some of his lines hint at a history of abuse that is never quite fleshed out. So, like all good villains, you can feel a little sorry for him. The most touching scene, I thought, was right near the end of the film.

An angry mob (with torches, of course) has cornered the Phantom on the banks of the Seine. They're approaching from all sides. The Phantom suddenly holds up a clenched fist and threatenes the crowd. The crowd backs off. What is the deranged genius holding this time, the crowd wonders? The audience wonders, too. We've seen him pull all manner of booby traps and tricks, so we wonder what this last one will be.

He opens his fist to reveal -- nothing. The Phantom's last trick is just that. A trick. A desperate bluff. And, seeing they're safe, the crowd descends on him ruthlessly.

Horrorfest 4: The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923)

Yet another in a long list of flicks I've heard about but never actually watched. I've seen clips from this one, but never sat through the whole thing.

Sadly, it seems in this case clips are enough, as long as you watch the right ones. The film is rightfully famous for Lon Chaney's performance as Quasimodo, the hunchback, as well as his innovative and grotesque makeup. But, when Quasimodo isn't on screen, we're left with a boring labyrinth of supporting characters, half of which we could do without and the other half of which could stand to get to the point a little more quickly.

Aside from Chaney, the other star of the film is Notre Dame itself, faithfully reconstructed on some soundstage at Universal as pretty much indistinguishable from the real thing. It's probably not full size, but it sure looks like it is, as it's shot from every angle, close up to wide. A cast of hundreds of extras is constantly on hand to alternatively storm the cathedral and party in the town square below the bell towers, as needed.

There are some pretty impressive stunt scenes in the first and last reels of the film as Quasimodo (and his stunt double) swing around the pillars, statues, ropes and gargoyles of Notre Dame as if he's a monkey in a zoo enclosure, albeit several hundred feet off the ground. But, inbetween these, we get seemingly endless scenes of costume melodrama as all the far less interesting characters explore the more boring aspects of romance, revolution and betrayel.

In case you're not familiar, HUNCHBACK is based on the novel by Victor Hugo, the story of Quasimodo, a deaf and half-blind hunchback who lives in Notre Dame cathedral and rings the bells. He's one of many characters who eventually falls in love with the gypsy woman, Esmerelda (Patsy Ruth Miller). Her other suitors include the captain of the guard and ladies' man, Phoebus (Norman Kerry), as well as Jehan (Brandon Hurst), creepy brother of the righteous head-deacon of Notre Dame, Don Claudio (Nigel De Brulier).

The tale is tragic as Quasimodo is first manipulated into kidnapping Esmeralda by Jehan, then caught by Phoebus and tortured in front of all of Paris. Esmerelda is the only one who shows him any sympathy, but meanwhile she's falling in love with Phoebus, who thwarted the kidnapping. Jehan, pissed, stabs Phoebus and frames Esmerelda, who is tortured into confessing and sentenced to death. Turns out, only Quasimodo can save her.

Add to this the fact that Esmeralda was kidnapped at a young age by gypsies and purchased by King of the Beggars, Clopin (Ernest Torrence), who spends half his time attempting to revolt against the upper class and the other half of his time attempting to cock block anyone daring to try to get close to Esmerelda, and you see where this starts to get a little overly complicated. On top of all of this, I've barely scratched the surface when it comes to extraneous characters and subplots.

In the end, the flick is important for Lon Chaney, the massive sets and the epic spectacle. Everything else in between is just boring filler.

Horrorfest 3: The Fly (1958)

"The search for truth is the most important thing in the world. And the most dangerous."

So says the great Vincent Price, as Francois Delambre in THE FLY.

Here's another flick I always read about but never got around to seeing. Sometimes when the basic skeletons of stories are so well embedded in culture, everyone forgets how the story was told and just remembers the ending.

So, I was surprised to find that THE FLY is actually constructed as somewhat of a mystery, with a couple big reveals aside from just the twist ending, which is the famous part. The whole first half hour of the movie is just a set up with question after question, and the final hour systematically provides the answers, as if slowly revealing one card after another in a hand of poker.

There were a few other surprises for me. First, I'd only ever seen black and white stills of the film, so I had no idea it was in beautiful color. I also had no idea it was in big, epic Cinemascope, Fox's version of widescreen. It wasn't a cheap B-movie at all and was one of Fox's biggest hits of 1958.

The story centers around the mystery of why Helene Delambre (Patricia Owens) would smash her scientist husband, Andre Delambre (David Hedison) in a hydraulic press. No, he wasn't a Terminator.

As usual, the hook is in the mundane and every day: much of the suspense revolves around the attempts to capture a common housefly, and the tiny creature buzzing around the living room is something everyone can relate to.

Most of the story is told in Helene's flashback as she describes how her husband's successful experiments in teleporting objects from one side of the lab to the other gave way to a tragic accident involving a common house fly.

Aside from Vincent Price's impressive presence in the opening and the closing of the film, Patricia Owens actually ends up doing most of the heavy lifting. David Hedison only has a few lines before he's transformed into a monster, and as the monster he spends most of his time with a sheet over his head (creepy) typing messages out on a type writer and scrawling them feverishly on a chalk board in frantic attempts to communicate with his wife. So, most of the horror and suspense rests on Owens' shoulders as she has to convince the audience that this sequence of events isn't ridiculous, but actually terrible.

The monster makeup is pretty cool, and made more effective by the suspense leading up to its eventual reveal. First you get the mutated fly-hand, then eventually the head is revealed. I wonder if the DISTRICT 9 guys had this in mind? The head of the creature actually looks like a fairly accurate representation of a fly instead of a sensationalized sci-fi creature, the most creepy aspect being the constantly fluttering antennae that stand in for a mouth. The filmmakers even exploit the fly's sense of vision by showing its point of view at a crucial moment and revealing a kaleidoscope of images, all revolving.

As the movie wraps up it becomes surprisingly emotionally involving. It's interesting how the husband and wife maintain a sense of teamwork even under such extreme conditions, and how they arrive at their ghastly conclusion after exhausting all alternatives. This is not your average creature-chasing-woman flick. In this one, the creature uses all of his will power to resist his monstrous urges, and the woman stands her ground in spite of everything.

Horrorfest 2: Carrie

Guess what? I'd never seen CARRIE all the way through before yesterday. So there. CARRIE is one of those flicks it seems like everyone but me saw at one time or another while they were growing up. It's one of those flicks where you know the basics before you go in -- misfit girl is picked on, has telekinetic powers, gets pig blood dumped on her at the prom and exacts supernatural revenge on her tormentors. Anyway, it's high time I finally saw it.

Turns out there's a reason it resonates with people. Imagine that. Not only is all of the subject matter easily relatable and iconic of pretty much all coming-of-age stories, but the film is interestingly shot by Brian DePalma and well-acted by all the main characters.

Stephen King works his magic here of weaving the supernatural into every day events, and actually manages to comment on the human condition with the exaggerated angle.

Here, the trauma of puberty, specifically of the female variety, is used to make us relate, while the magic of telekinesis is used to give us (and Carrie) an outlet.

But dudes can relate to. Who hasn't felt vulnerable in the locker room? In the shower? At a dance? Asking someone out? Being asked out by someone else? Dealing with your parents?

Sure, Carrie happens to be more painfully shy, awkward and naive than your average teenager. She also happens to be better looking. Sissy Spacek makes a lot out of the role, really making the audience feel for her. But, like her gym teacher, the audience also occasionally wants to smack some sense into her. It's an interesting line for the film to walk -- Carrie is both an object to be pitied, as well as an object to be ridiculed.

Back home, we meet the main reason why Carrie is the way she is -- her mom. As played by Piper Laurie, Carrie's mom is nothing short of insane. It's a memorable performance because of how over the top it is, but it doesn't really have any of the depth or nuance that slicker villains sometimes do. Still, Laurie's a force of nature and really rises to the occasion as the overbearing, fundamentalist psycho.

Most of the film works because it is fairly understated and naturalistic. Take away the brief supernatural interludes and this could be an average teenage movie about a shy girl and a bunch of bullies. It takes place in the real world, with real three dimensional characters. That's the strength of the film.

Another strength is the musical score by Pino Donaggio. This thing works overtime building atmosphere and feeling and never really faltering. In a lesser film this score could be a little too much, but here it strikes the right balance.

Towards the end there are a couple obvious shots that hammer the point home a little too securely, betraying the understated nature of the rest of the film, and we lose some of the naturalistic feeling of the first 3/4 of the film. But, the climax doesn't ruin the picture, and although the last fright sequence can be seen coming a mile away, it is still effective because of the performances that have preceded it.

Horrorfest 1: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

This October, in honor of Halloween, I've decided to watch 31 horror flicks in 31 days. Some of them will just be DVDs and VHS tapes I have collecting dust on the shelf, others will be titles I've never seen before that I'm either checking out at the Laurelhurst or on Netflix using the "watch now" feature.

So, here we go:

HORRORFEST 1: DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (1920)

I've wanted to see this silent film ever since I was a little kid. I used to check books out of the library about the making and history of horror films, and I remember seeing a still of John Barrymore from this flick in one of those books dressed as Mr. Hyde with his dark, stringy, greasy hair and his long skeletal fingers, a slimy and crooked smile on his face. Barrymore's Hyde has a look on his face that not only shows that he's evil, but seems to suggest that he can secretly see the evil you're hiding inside of you, and is laughing at you because of it.

Here's the picture I remember:

Anyway, about two decades later, I've finally watched the whole movie, thanks to Netflix.

The flick gets off to kind of a slow start, but as soon as Hyde shows up, things pick up. Robert Louis Stevenson's story is famous as an allegory for the duality of the human soul -- the good side vs. the evil side, and the battle to reconcile both of them. But, it's also clearly about the powers and dangers of addiction -- the good Dr. Jekyll gets hooked not only on his new, evil, uninhibited Mr. Hyde persona, but he also gets hooked on the drug he has invented in order to bring about the change. At first he uses the drug to change into Hyde -- before long, he can't get enough of the drug just to stay as his true self, Dr. Jekyll.

The great and unique part of this flick is the look of Mr. Hyde -- he looks monstrous enough to chill the audience, but real enough that you can picture yourself running into him on the street. He also looks similar enough to Dr. Jekyll that you feel like you're watching the same character, just in an altered state, as opposed to two individual characters. This is unlike the later JEKYLL & HYDE films, some of which go to such extremes as to turn the character into an almost werewolf-like monster.

I think most of this look is due to John Barrymore and his performance. As Jekyll, he has the classic good looks of a matinee idol, veering on the edge of a little too fancy schmancy, like most silent film stars of his era. As Hyde, Barrymore uses his posture and facial expressions more than makeup to complete the transformation. Each transformation is more torturous than the last and each time he becomes Hyde he's more hideous and dangerous.

Aside from the transformation scenes and the brutal murder of Jekyll's friend Carew at the hands of Hyde and his cane, the other most standout scene is a nighttime scene in which a sleeping Dr. Jekyll is overcome with the transformation into Hyde without even inducing it with drugs. The filmmakers use an image of a giant, hairy spider to represent the evil inside of Jekyll, first crawling out of Jekyll's sleeping body, then turning around and crawling back on top of Jekyll. Aside from the creepy thought of such a creature crawling into bed with you, the viewer can't help but see the rape parallels as the creature's many arms envelope Jekyll's helpless body.

If you think you can sit through a silent flick, this one's worth checking out. John Barrymores' Hyde has got to be one of the greatest screen villains of all. I wonder if Drew Barrymore has ever seen this?

Movie theater reviews

I go to lots of movies in lots of theaters. Here are my thoughts on a variety of theaters in the Portland area, judging price, presentation, programming, eats/drinks and atmosphere on a scale of 1-4, 1 being the worst and 4 being the best.

BAGDAD THEATER AND PUB

PRICE: Good. 4/4

Tickets are cheap.

PRESENTATION: Pretty good. 2/4

You can't always be sure you'll get to see a film here. They've been known to show DVDs on the big screen and pass it off as a real movie. So, it's kind of hit and miss.

PROGRAMMING: Pretty good. 3/4

Usually just second run mainstream movies, but sometimes revivals of classics. Unfortunately, usually the revivals are tied to a radio station promotion or local club of some kind and they usually encourage rowdy audiences, so that can take away from the experience.

EATS AND DRINKS: Pretty good. 3/4

Pizza, popcorn, beer. This is a McMenamin's, so it's all just okay.

ATMOSPHERE: Great. 4/4

This is one of the most grand examples of a movie palace in Portland. A beautiful lobby and beautiful auditorium, designed in the Arabian nights fashion, as the name of the theater suggests.

CINEMA 21

PRICE: Pretty good. 2/4

They usually try to steer you in the direction of admitting you're a student, even if you're not. This place is cheaper than a first-run theater but more expensive than a lot of the second run theaters in town. There's no debit card machine, though, which sucks.

PRESENTATION: Good. 3/4

You can always rely in seeing honest-to-God films here, but the cavernous auditorium can make for an echo-filled viewing experience. Still, good visuals and good sound, even if the acoustics aren't so good.

PROGRAMMING: Great. 4/4

You'll be hard pressed to find another theater in Portland with such great classics, foreign films or indies. This place gets a lot of opening weekend exclusives, too, so sometimes it's the closest you can get to New York or LA without leaving Portland.

EATS AND DRINKS: Good. 3/4

Popcorn and candy. Also, coffee. And, just recently, beer. I used to say, "I wish Cinema 21 served beer." Now I don't have to say that anymore.

ATMOSPHERE: Good. 3/4

The place is a little run down, but it's a nice huge auditorium with a big screen and a balcony, so it does transport you back in time, a little bit.

HOLLYWOOD THEATRE

PRICE: Pretty good. 2/4

Again, more expensive than most second runs but less expensive than a first run theater. They have cheap tickets on Mondays, and you can buy a membership to get all kinds of deals.

PRESENTATION: Pretty good. 2/4

Again, depending on the way the studios choose to distribute their films to this theater, you may not end up seeing something on film. But I'd say 9 times out of 10, you will.

PROGRAMMING: Good. 3/4

This is almost great, but because this is a non-profit theater it ends up being a little eclectic. Usually it's a great selection of foreign, independent, classic and offbeat second-run films, but sometimes the films can be so offbeat that no one really wants to see them.

EATS AND DRINKS: Good. 3/4

Coffee, yes. Beer, no. On the bright side, the popcorn is the fluffiest stuff you're likely to see in Portland.

ATMOSPHERE: Good. 3/4

Again, could have been great, but this place is a little run down, I think mostly because they spend all their money on getting movies and none of it on keeping the place up. The outside architecture is great, and some of it remains on the inside, as well, but the place has been through some rough times and awkward remodels.

KENNEDY SCHOOL THEATER:

PRICE: Great. 4/4

Movies are nice and cheap.

PRESENTATION: Good. 3/4

You'll get your films on film, here, but they're projected in a cavernous gymnasium so chances are you won't have great acoustics.

PROGRAMMING: Pretty good. 2/4

This is mostly just a second-run theater, and it tends to veer towards childrens' and family films. But, occasionally they'll play something cool.

EATS AND DRINKS: Pretty good. 3/4

Again, it's a McMenamin's. So, there's middle-of-the-road pizza and beer.

ATMOSPHERE: Good. 3/4

As mentioned before, this theater is located in the gymnasium of what used to be an elementary school, so it's definitely unique. The seats are made up of mis-matched couches and arm chairs. On one hand this is nice and comfy. On the other, it's creepy to wonder what kind of shenanigans the cushions inspire in the dark.

LAURELHURST THEATER:

PRICE: Great. 4/4

Movies are $3.00.

PRESENTATION: Good. 3/4

Prints aren't always the best, but everything's on film.

PROGRAMMING: Great. 4/4

This is mostly a second-run theater but they always reserve one screen for a classic, and someone with great taste must be programming the classics because they're almost always awesome. On top of this, they tend to run both second-run mainstream films as well as second-run indies and foreign flicks, so it's half art-house and half second-run.

EATS AND DRINKS: Good. 3/4

Beer, pizza and popcorn. The pizza can be floppy and soggy but the beer selection is good.

ATMOSPHERE: Good. 3/4

The marquee outside is great. Inside you're greeted with an eclectic but usable decor.

MORELAND THEATER:

PRICE: Pretty good. 2/4

More expensive than most second-runs, but cheaper than a mainstream theater.

PRESENTATION: Good. 3/4

Nice big screen, one large auditorium, always good prints.

PROGRAMMING: Good. 3/4

For a one-screen, this place gets a lot of first-run movies. Problem is, they're stuck there for 3 weeks to a month, so you can't visit this place very often unless you want to see the same movie multiple times.

EATS AND DRINKS: Pretty good. 2/4

The usual: popcorn, candy and soda. No beer, no coffee, though they do look the other way if you want to bring something in from one of the nearby Starbucks.

ATMOSPHERE: Good. 3/4

This is another Arabian style movie palace. Stepping into the lobby and auditorium is almost like stepping back in time.

REGAL FOX TOWER STADIUM 10:

PRICE: Shitty. 1/4

These flicks are full price, so hopefully you have a coupon.

PRESENTATION: Good. 3/4

Great sound, good visuals, no complaints.

PROGRAMMING: Great. 4/4

This is one-stop-shopping for current arthouse flicks.

EATS AND DRINKS: Pretty good. 2/4

Usual movie theater fare.

ATMOSPHERE: Pretty good. 2/4

It's kind of cool how the theaters are built into a multi-story building where you have to ride the escalator to get up to the main lobby. But, each theater is pretty small and the modern architecture is cold and impersonal.

REGAL LLOYD CENTER STADIUM 10:

PRICE: Shitty. 1/4

Again, full price. Yuck.

PRESENTATION: Shitty. 1/4

Sound is spotty and they have a bad habit of running most of their projector bulbs very low. So you end up with a murky, mushy, gray picture. The people at the Lloyd can make a brand new print look like it has been dragged through the mud, and there's no excuse for it.

PROGRAMMING: Pretty good. 2/4

If you're looking for whatever mainstream, first-run hit has come out within the last few weeks, this is the place to look.

EATS AND DRINKS: Pretty good. 2/4

Standard movie theater stuff, though they tend to always be out of coffee.

ATMOSPHERE: Shitty. 1/4

You can tell you're at a mall movie theater when you're at this place. Big, empty, ugly. There are a couple gigantic screens, which are nice, since you don't see them much anymore these days, but the theater doesn't really take advantage of them. Oh, and I'm not sure why they call this place a "stadium." If I remember correctly, there's no stadium seating to be found.

ROSEWAY THEATRE:

PRICE: Good. 3/4

Cheaper than most first-runs, but more expensive than most second-runs.

PRESENTATION: Great. 4/4

State of the art sound and digital projection make this the best place to see a movie in Portland.

PROGRAMMING: Good. 3/4

This is a one-screen theater, so they're usually stuck with the same movie for weeks at a time, but they miraculously get whatever the coolest new movie is at any given time.

EATS AND DRINKS: Good. 3/4

No beer, and no coffee but the popcorn is as fluffy as the Hollywood Theatre's popcorn.

ATMOSPHERE: Good. 3/4

The best of both worlds: the feel of an old-school movie palace and the cleanliness of a brand new, state of the art theater. Curtains, stained glass windows, but also comfy chairs and good acoustics.