Sat 12 Aug 2017
A Horror Movie Review by Jonathan Lewis: NIGHT OF THE DEMON (1957).
Posted by Steve under Horror movies , Reviews[7] Comments
NIGHT OF THE DEMON. Columbia Pictures, UK, 1957. Columbia Pictures, US, 1958; released as Curse of the Demon and shortened by 13 minutes. Dana Andrews, Peggy Cummins, Niall MacGinnis, Maurice Denham, Athene Seyler. Based on the story “Casting the Runes” by M. R. James. Cinematography by Edward Scaife. Director: Jacques Tourneur.
The plot may be hopelessly incoherent, but the photography is amazing. Now, amazing isn’t usually a word that I would use when discussing cinematography. But it fits. With director Jacques Tourneur (Cat People, Out of the Past) at the helm and cinematographer Ted Scaife (Khartoum, The Dirty Dozen) behind the camera, Night of the Demon is elevated from what would have been a mediocre B- horror movie into a visually stunning work of horror cinema, albeit one that is not well served by its, confusing and disjointed story line.
Psychologist and professional skeptic Dr. John Holden (Dana Andrews) arrives in England for an academic conference wherein he hopes to disprove the existence of the supernatural and the theories of occult leader Dr. Julian Karswell (Niall MacGinnis). Unfortunately, just prior to Holden’s arrival, the viewer learns that the world of black magic is all-too-real — at least in this movie.
Rather than hinting at the possibility of the occult, or teasing the audience a bit, the filmmakers behind Night of the Demon evidently decided to show the audience the fire monster within the first ten minutes of the movie. The problem with this, of course, is that it takes away a great deal of suspense and makes Holden’s incessant arguments with his late colleague’s niece, Joanna (Peggy Cummins), about why witchcraft is all just a bunch of hokum even more tedious. And believe me, it’s not merely once or twice than Holden segues into a monologue why he is not superstitious.
But lest you think I didn’t enjoy the movie at all, I assure you that, in many ways I did. There’s something cinematically magical about black-and-white horror movies like Night of the Demon. It’s in the way in which they create a whole universe all its own. An off-kilter world, a land of shadows and madness, the England that Dr. Holden finds himself in is a land that harks back to its pre-Christian past.
England may be modern, but there’s an Anglo-Saxon past just underneath the surface. After all, the people who wrote cryptic manuscripts in runes had their own ways of thinking well before scientists like our protagonist Dr. Holden came along.
August 12th, 2017 at 11:01 am
Film buffs, philosophers and Biblical scholars have been discussing the “show-the-monster vs. don’t-show-the-monster” issue for decades. Whatever the case, it’s a damnfine monster in a film that ratchets up tension beautifully.
August 12th, 2017 at 1:12 pm
I’m one who’s definitely in the “should not have shown” category. It came way too soon, if it needed to be shown at all. From what I understand, and the stories vary considerably, Tourneur was OK with it at first, but as adverse reaction set in, he blamed the early appearance on others.
August 12th, 2017 at 7:39 pm
This is a very good review!
Jacques Tourneur is a great director. Many, probably most of his films show tremendously creative photography.
The school of criticism of which I am a member, auteurism, centers on directors who have creative “visual style”. Their works are fascinating to watch.
Sometimes it’s a good idea to concentrate on the photography of a film. Once studied, it often reveals a richness not obvious at first glance
August 12th, 2017 at 9:42 pm
As a subject for study either, or both, of the demon variations are undoubtedly worthwhile. As entertainment, not at all, other than the fine moments provided by Dana Andrews. The film was unsuccessful, and in my view, with good reason. All of the intellectual questions it supposedly raises are strictly for the Gitanes smoking crowd, following which they can disperse to the park and rail and injustice.
August 12th, 2017 at 11:26 pm
I hold the monster is the only real mistake here, but it comes down to everyone sees it through their own eyes. But I love it because it was a rarity then, intelligent.
August 13th, 2017 at 2:36 pm
I quite agree, David!
August 14th, 2017 at 11:42 am
It’s been a while, but I saw an interview with Dana Andrews in which he thought the decision to show the monster was a bad one, undermining the terror aspects of the original story by objectifying the threat. His opinion comports with Boris Karloff’s, who felt that the terror in “tales of terror” is most effective when the readers/viewers supply it themselves.