OT: The Haunting
Mark Alexander Bertenshaw
Ok, so this is not to do with Babylon 5 exactly, but it is a fantastic film.
I was lucky to watch this film on late night Saturday, on BBC2, and it is
simply one of the best films I have ever seen. It is what Harlan Ellison
(sole B5 connection <g>) has called a film of Terror. There is hardly any
explicitness in this film, and there is not very much in the way of obvious
"haunted house" manifestations, but it is one of the ultimate haunted house
films. There is only one obvious special effect, and that one is
surprisingly cool - in fact I would say it is one that you would not expect
in an early 1960s black & white film. Most of the terror comes from
disturbing sound, excellent but weird cinematography, and most of all, the
hysterical internal voice of the main character. The latter is an unusual
device; most films would not be able to pull it off, since film is generally
a visual medium only. But that character's delusional state of mind is
essential for the film to work on both a supernatural and a psychological
level.
I have heard that this is based on a book, and there has been a recent
remake. For those in the know, do either of these live up to the film?
--
Mark Bertenshaw
Jms at B5
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
WWS
The recent remake was a perfect example of what's gone wrong with so
much of the movie industry. All the subtlety and psychological
nuances were thrown out, and three dump truck loads of gore and a big
pile of special F/X were thrown in in the hope that somewhow that would
make up for the fact that the script was done in 2 hours on the back
of a napkin. All the terror was lost, what was left (just like so much
of what is mistakenly called "horror" films today) was nothing but a
gory freak show peopled with characters no one likes dying for reasons
no one cares about.
It flopped at the box office, unsurprisingly. And yet the lesson the
studio drew from that is probably going to be "gee, maybe we need
more F/X next time, and more sex too."
In my mind, it's pretty analogous to the Paramount/Trek problem - the
people making these things have a deepseated contempt for their
potential audience, and therefore think they'll swallow anything
blindly and that any actual effort and intelligence put into a
production is a complete waste of effort.
The most unforgiveable part is that movies such as the original
"Haunting" are blueprints for how to do it right.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
Shaz
see what I'm referring to.
Anyway, re: Hollywood completely missing the point...
When I was teaching SF and Philosophy at UM-Flint I *forced* my students to
watch two films in particular. The Day The Earth Stood Still and Forbidden
Planet.
You would not believe (actually, this is an intelligent SF audience, so you
probably would) the trouble I had getting them to sit down and pay attention
when they saw Forbidden Planet was made in the 50's. How could it POSSIBLY
be any good?
I stuck to my guns and told them THIS was what we would watch and we could
talk about it in the next class. And no, they couldn't go to the cafeteria
instead.
They watched it.
By the end the quiet 'wows!' were common.
Then I made them watch the Day The Earth Stood Still and their first
reaction was "BLACK AND WHITE?! Who the hell watches black and white movies
these days?"
"You do, if you want to finish this course. Now watch it!"
They watched.
And finally I got through to them that good SF depends ENTIRELY on the plot.
Special FX make it fun, but they can't rescue a dire script. A whole new
vista of films and books opened to them as I peeled away the concept that SF
started (and stopped) with Trek and Star Wars. Suddenly they realised the
real stuff had depth, was thought provoking, required brains to appreciate,
and didn't just mean guys in funny uniforms pointing guns at other guys in
weird makeup, with the occasional scantily clad ditzy female standing in the
background.
Then, of course, I offered them the chance to watch B5 after class if they
cared to hang around.
They did.
<G>
And we discussed both the show and related topics for hours either in the
classroom or in the nearest bar, whichever was most convenient.
The B5 showings lasted long after the course was finished. You know, I
should get a badge that says 'Prophet of the Great Maker. Approach with
Caution!'
I just bought the DVD of the original 1937 Frank Capra version of Lost
Horizon. b/w, the quality of the print is now a little shaky and they've had
to restore stuff using stills and the rescued soundtrack in places because
the original has been lost forever. And it's still a stunningly well made
film. They did two remakes of that, and both of them were disastrous, yet
there are probably millions of people out there who have never watched this
excellent film solely on the grounds that it's too old. The day people start
to realise old does not necessarily mean naff I'll be cracking open the
champagne.
The old adage that you should never judge a book by its cover applies just
as well to films. I wish Hollywood would get a clue and quit trying to beat
us over the head with the flash, bang, wallop and concentrate instead on the
PLOT!
Shaz
"WWS" <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote in message
news:38A05166...@tyler.net...
Gharlane of Eddore
In <87nab5$or9$1...@nclient11-gui.server.virgin.net>
"Mark Alexander Bertenshaw" <Mark.Be...@virgin.net> writes:
>
> Good day, all.
>
> Ok, so this is not to do with Babylon 5 exactly, but it is a fantastic
> film.
>
> I was lucky to watch this film on late night Saturday, on BBC2, and
> it is simply one of the best films I have ever seen. It is what
> Harlan Ellison (sole B5 connection <g>) has called a film of Terror.
> There is hardly any explicitness in this film, and there is not very
> much in the way of obvious "haunted house" manifestations, but it is
> one of the ultimate haunted house films. There is only one obvious
> special effect, and that one is surprisingly cool - in fact I would
> say it is one that you would not expect in an early 1960s black &
> white film. Most of the terror comes from disturbing sound, excellent
> but weird cinematography, and most of all, the hysterical internal
> voice of the main character. The latter is an unusual device; most
> films would not be able to pull it off, since film is generally
> a visual medium only. But that character's delusional state of
> mind is essential for the film to work on both a supernatural and
> a psychological level.
>
> I have heard that this is based on a book, and there has been a
> recent remake. For those in the know, do either of these live
> up to the film?
>
The book was Shirley Jackson's "THE HAUNTING OF HILL HOUSE."
You just saw the 1963 version directed by Robert Wise, camera work
by Davis Boulton. ( And a couple of really hot actors, ranging
from Julie Harris to Valentine Dyall. Russ Tamblyn, Claire Bloom,
too. )
Be thankful you saw it on Brit TV, which means you probably saw
most of it; over here they chop it to heckangone, since it's
"just" a B&W movie, and they run it at 3 AM to fill space between
commercials.
The book is decent. The recent high-budget remake starring Liam
Neeson and Catherine Zeta-Jones is not worth price of admission,
although it's probably worth watching for free on TV, eventually.
They apparently figured that hiring high-cost actors and spending
the budget of a small state on the sets and FX would obviate any
necessity for writing a good script prior to the beginning of
principal shooting.....
bev1...@ecn.ab.ca
: I was lucky to watch this film on late night Saturday, on BBC2, and it is
: simply one of the best films I have ever seen. It is what Harlan Ellison
: (sole B5 connection <g>) has called a film of Terror. There is hardly any
: explicitness in this film, and there is not very much in the way of obvious
: "haunted house" manifestations, but it is one of the ultimate haunted house
: films. There is only one obvious special effect, and that one is
: surprisingly cool - in fact I would say it is one that you would not expect
: in an early 1960s black & white film. Most of the terror comes from
: disturbing sound, excellent but weird cinematography, and most of all, the
: hysterical internal voice of the main character. The latter is an unusual
: device; most films would not be able to pull it off, since film is generally
: a visual medium only. But that character's delusional state of mind is
: essential for the film to work on both a supernatural and a psychological
: level.
: I have heard that this is based on a book, and there has been a recent
: remake. For those in the know, do either of these live up to the film?
I didn't bother seeing the recent remake -- I had been warned off it by
movie-loving friends who assured me it was lousy. Apparently it had little
to do with the original book (or was it short story?) or the 1960's b&w
movie which you saw, except that it used the same names of the main
characters (big whoop). Anyway, I share your enthusiasm with the original
film. I'd seen it as a teenager, and I was not a fan of horror films, and
to prove the point it scared the bejeebers out of me. The scariest part of
'The Haunting' was that the audience never saw the monster. That's what
kept the intensity of the fear going throughout the movie.
The Haunting of Hill House by Shirley Jackson was the story the film was
based on. Shirley Jackson also wrote 'The Lottery', which no
self-respecting literature teacher can ignore as a classic gem as far as
horror stories go. For me, that particular story was made horrifying by
the fact that it was so ordinary. The suspense built up to its climax
right at the very end. If you want to be scared and aren't into slasher
films (yuk!) check out any of Shirley Jackson's story anthologies at your
local library. You won't regret it.
Bev
Edmonton, Alberta
Cassius81
>The Haunting of Hill House by Shirley Jackson was the story the film was
>based on. Shirley Jackson also wrote 'The Lottery', which no
>self-respecting literature teacher can ignore as a classic gem as far as
>horror stories go. For me, that particular story was made horrifying by
>the fact that it was so ordinary. The suspense built up to its climax
>right at the very end. If you want to be scared and aren't into slasher
>films (yuk!) check out any of Shirley Jackson's story anthologies at your
>local library. You won't regret it.
Hm. Wasn't there a Real Ghostbusters episode where the guys visited "Heck
House"? (For those who don't know, RG was one of JMS' projects prior to Babylon
5)
Cassius' Quote of the Day:
"With exercise, the main idea is to come as close as possible to killing
yourself without actually doing it; that way, your body figures that you're a
total idiot and takes measures to protect itself."
Wesley Struebing
of Eddore) wrote:
>
>In <87nab5$or9$1...@nclient11-gui.server.virgin.net>
>"Mark Alexander Bertenshaw" <Mark.Be...@virgin.net> writes:
>>
>> Good day, all.
<snip>
>>
>> I have heard that this is based on a book, and there has been a
>> recent remake. For those in the know, do either of these live
>> up to the film?
>>
>
>The book was Shirley Jackson's "THE HAUNTING OF HILL HOUSE."
Gharlane, am I correct in assuming that this is NOT the same as the
1959 Vinnie Price movie, called "The Haunting of Hill House"? Or is
that another "make/remake" of the book IMHO, not one of Vinnie's
better movies.
>
>
>The book is decent. The recent high-budget remake starring Liam
>Neeson and Catherine Zeta-Jones is not worth price of admission,
>although it's probably worth watching for free on TV, eventually.
Probably figured Neeson could carry it. I've also heard that he
didn't...pity.
Jms at B5
>to prove the point it scared the bejeebers out of me. The scariest part of
>'The Haunting' was that the audience never saw the monster. That's what
>kept the intensity of the fear going throughout the movie.
About the only film of that period that's more unsettling is SECONDS, with (of
all people) Rock Hudson. It's a terrific film, marginally speculative fiction,
but it'll utterly leave you with the heebie-jeebies.
John W. Kennedy
> I didn't bother seeing the recent remake -- I had been warned off it by
> movie-loving friends who assured me it was lousy. Apparently it had little
> to do with the original book (or was it short story?)
There's a play, too. I'm not sure at the moment whether SJ wrote it.
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
bev1...@ecn.ab.ca
: >I'd seen it as a teenager, and I was not a fan of horror films, and
: >to prove the point it scared the bejeebers out of me. The scariest part of
: >'The Haunting' was that the audience never saw the monster. That's what
: >kept the intensity of the fear going throughout the movie.
: About the only film of that period that's more unsettling is SECONDS, with (of
: all people) Rock Hudson. It's a terrific film, marginally speculative fiction,
: but it'll utterly leave you with the heebie-jeebies.
: jms
Oh, yeah!! I also saw that as a teenager. I was amazed, especially
regarding Rock Hudson's performance; I always thought his talent for
dramatic acting was underutilized. I'm sure I haven't seen the film since
the sixties either. The final few scenes in the film have stuck with me
this long. I really like stories that are off the beaten path.
I remember reading a list you made a while ago of your favourite films.
All but one or two are my favourites as well. Who'd 'a thought I'd have
that much in common with your artistic tastes. (Now that's scary.)
Bev
Edmonton, Alberta
Chris Riesbeck
Struebing <str...@americanisp.com> wrote:
>On 8 Feb 2000 22:32:14 -0700, ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu (Gharlane
>of Eddore) wrote:
>
>>
>>The book was Shirley Jackson's "THE HAUNTING OF HILL HOUSE."
>
>Gharlane, am I correct in assuming that this is NOT the same as the
>1959 Vinnie Price movie, called "The Haunting of Hill House"? Or is
>that another "make/remake" of the book IMHO, not one of Vinnie's
>better movies.
I think you're thinking of "The House on Haunted Hill"...
Wesley Struebing
<str...@americanisp.com> wrote:
>On 8 Feb 2000 22:32:14 -0700, ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu (Gharlane
>of Eddore) wrote:
>
>>
>>In <87nab5$or9$1...@nclient11-gui.server.virgin.net>
>>"Mark Alexander Bertenshaw" <Mark.Be...@virgin.net> writes:
>>>
>>> Good day, all.
><snip>
>>>
>>> I have heard that this is based on a book, and there has been a
>>> recent remake. For those in the know, do either of these live
>>> up to the film?
>>>
>>
>>The book was Shirley Jackson's "THE HAUNTING OF HILL HOUSE."
>
>Gharlane, am I correct in assuming that this is NOT the same as the
>1959 Vinnie Price movie, called "The Haunting of Hill House"? Or is
>that another "make/remake" of the book IMHO, not one of Vinnie's
>better movies.
>
Not to reply to my own reply, but the Vincent Price movie I was
thinking of was "The House on Haunted Hill" (I believe, thank you,
Scott) and was around 1956, not 1959...
(hangs head in shame and wanders off mumbling to himself...)
Scott Bragg
wrote:
>Gharlane, am I correct in assuming that this is NOT the same as the
>1959 Vinnie Price movie, called "The Haunting of Hill House"? Or is
>that another "make/remake" of the book IMHO, not one of Vinnie's
>better movies.
I think you are referring to "The House on Haunted Hill" which also was
remade recently.
Get the originals if you can, they're worlds better than the remakes.
Scott Bragg 3D Animator / Programmer / Web Developer
sc...@electrondreams.com www.electrondreams.com
Chris Huston
bev1...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
<snipping to save bandwidth>
> I didn't bother seeing the recent remake -- I had been warned off it by
> movie-loving friends who assured me it was lousy. Apparently it had little
> to do with the original book (or was it short story?) or the 1960's b&w
> movie which you saw, except that it used the same names of the main
> characters (big whoop). Anyway, I share your enthusiasm with the original
> film. I'd seen it as a teenager, and I was not a fan of horror films, and
> to prove the point it scared the bejeebers out of me. The scariest part of
> 'The Haunting' was that the audience never saw the monster. That's what
> kept the intensity of the fear going throughout the movie.
I won't rent the remake either because I too heard it's pretty awful. As
for the original, it still has chilling moments for me. One of the
freakiest moments, one that works especially well in a dark room (bigger
the TV the better, sound up), is that simple camera shot of the hallway
with that door at the end open (which, until that point, was closed).
Simple yet very effective. I think the closest B5 has come to having
"freaky" moments and such is "In The Shadow Of Z'ha'dum," what with the
Shadows and all that. Takes a lot to give me goosebumps but for some
reason this episode really gives me the wig.
> Bev
> Edmonton, Alberta
Hi there, fellow Canuck. Posting from Winnipeg me self. :)
--CH
Pat Kight
>
> bev1...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> > I didn't bother seeing the recent remake -- I had been warned off it by
> > movie-loving friends who assured me it was lousy. Apparently it had little
> > to do with the original book (or was it short story?)
>
"The Haunting of Hill House," stage script by F. Andrew Leslie from the
novel by Shirley Jackson. Available through Dramatists Play Service
Inc.http://www.dramatists.com/
The play retains most of the tension of Jackson's story, although it's a
wee bit more melodramatic than the film. Lots of good opportunities for
scary stage effects and sounds, though. (-;
--Pat Kight
word geek by day, theater geek by night
kig...@peak.org
bev1...@ecn.ab.ca
: I won't rent the remake either because I too heard it's pretty awful. As
: for the original, it still has chilling moments for me. One of the
: freakiest moments, one that works especially well in a dark room (bigger
: the TV the better, sound up), is that simple camera shot of the hallway
: with that door at the end open (which, until that point, was closed).
: Simple yet very effective. I think the closest B5 has come to having
: "freaky" moments and such is "In The Shadow Of Z'ha'dum," what with the
: Shadows and all that. Takes a lot to give me goosebumps but for some
: reason this episode really gives me the wig.
: Hi there, fellow Canuck. Posting from Winnipeg me self. :)
: --CH
A tip of the hat to you, then, eh? My father is from Winnipeg.
Yes, folks, we have intimate knowledge of what the great white north is
about, especially in February.
Bev