Mon 14 Jun 2010
Archived Movie Review: THE SEVENTH VICTIM (1943)
Posted by Steve under Horror movies , Reviews[39] Comments
THE SEVENTH VICTIM. RKO Radio Pictures, 1943. Tom Conway, Jean Brooks, Isabel Jewell, Kim Hunter, Evelyn Brent, Hugh Beaumont. Producer: Val Lewton. Director: Mark Robson.
A naive young woman in a private girls’ school heads for New York to see if she can find her missing sister. Once there, she discovers that her sister has become involved with a cult of rather tame devil-worshipers. The movie itself is moody, atmospheric, and — not very interesting.
Maybe it’s the lack of a proper budget, but I found myself nodding off, more often than not. In its own way, though, the ending is worth waiting for. This movie has more sting in its tail than any other of its type I’ve seen for a while — a solid, telling blow in the never-ending battle of good against evil.
[UPDATE] 06-14-10. This movie has a rating of well above average on IMDB, 6.9 stars out of 10. I’m willing to concede that I may be mistaken in my opinion of this movie. To that end, so that I might watch it again, I have recently purchased a box set of nine Val Lewton movies, and this is the first one I’ll take out of the pack.
In the meantime, let me ask this question. The movie’s discussed on a number of noir-oriented blogs and websites. Is it noir, or it did come along too early to be a true noir? If it is noir — and I understand this full well — it was only accidental. Who knew what noir was in 1943?
The nine movies, by the way:
Cat People
The Curse of the Cat People
I Walked with a Zombie
The Body Snatcher
Isle of the Dead
Bedlam
The Leopard Man
The Ghost Ship
The Seventh Victim
Shadows in the Dark
June 14th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
I rate this as Lewton’s best movie —even above the highly praised I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE and the lyric sensitive CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE.
Still, I agree it is a slow even deliberate film, that turns a good deal on that powerful ending (Tom Conway may have the best scene of his career showing just how banal and petty evil can be).
But dull? Well, I suppose if you are expecting a horror film or even an average suspense film it could be. But for me I found it both eerie and disconcerting — a film more interested in frissons than jumping out and scaring you.
Stephen King didn’t much care for this or Lewton’s CAT PEOPLE either (in his otherwise excellent DANSE MACABRE) — I guess because nothing in either film makes you want to throw up or scream (he found the biggest scare in CAT PEOPLE a cheat because is was the brake on a bus and not a monster). It’s long after this film that its power may strike you, lingering as something genuinely disturbing and not merely a few momentary frights.
Lewton may well have been the most literate and literary maker of these sort of films that ever lived.
June 14th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
Without quite saying so in my Update, I have a pretty good feeling that I was expecting something more overtly scary. I don’t usually watch movies that make me want to “throw up or scream,” but I suspect there is some truth in that anyway.
June 14th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
Steve,
THE SEVENTH VICTIM has a big reputation, praised by many leading film historians.
But I can’t stand it.
It is such a relief to encounter someone else who’s not a fan!
I am not much of a Val Lewton fan. I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE is a classic though.
*
THE SEVENTH VICTIM is perhaps more a horror film than a crime thriller – and hence outside of the scope of film noir.
But one hesitates to be dogmatic.
June 14th, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Steve
Not comparing you to King, you don’t have the juvenile streak he does, but I did suspect from your review you were probably thinking in terms of a more common kind of horror film.
Nothing wrong with that, I love them too, but for the most part that isn’t what Val Lewton was about — though there are some pretty good ‘gottcha’ moments in CAT PEOPLE and THE BODY SNACTHERS. I would argue though his best work is quiet horror as in this and I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE.
There aren’t a lot of visceral thrills in Lewton’s work — he’s more likely to disturb your sleep than to make you jump from your seat.
Oddly VICTIM is the closet of his films other than THE LEOPARD MAN to a film noir suspense film or a detective film. Both involve a solution to a mystery, though only in LEOPARD is it anything as common as murder. I don’t know that either film is truly noir, but certainly both touch on elements of style, subject, and character that are important to noir films. Three of his directors — Jacques Tourneur, Robert Wise, and Mark Robson are fairly important to noir.
Incidentally of the set of Lewton films SHADOWS IN THE DARK is a fine documentary on Lewton and his films previously shown on TCM.
June 14th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
Mike
Likewise, I’m sure — it’s good to learn that I’m not the only one who didn’t care for this movie when I watched it the first time.
But that was 17 years ago, which is why I didn’t say “doesn’t care for this movie.”
I don’t, in fact, remember much of the movie, not even the ending, only vague bits and pieces here and there.
Finding my old reviews and re-reading them now is often a learning (if not humbling) experience!
— Steve
June 14th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
David
Besides the director, Mark Robson, whose noir film credits appear rather slim, we could look to see who the cinematographer, was — Nicholas Musuraca — and what other films he did. Among them:
# Devil’s Canyon (1953)
# Split Second (1953)
# The Hitch-Hiker (1953)
# The Blue Gardenia (1953)
# The Whip Hand (1951)
# Roadblock (1951)
# The Company She Keeps (1951)
# Hunt the Man Down (1950)
# Born to Be Bad (1950)
# Where Danger Lives (1950)
# The Woman on Pier 13 (1949)
# Blood on the Moon (1948)
# Out of the Past (1947)
# The Locket (1946)
# Bedlam (1946)
# Deadline at Dawn (1946)
# The Spiral Staircase (1945)
# The Curse of the Cat People (1944)
# The Ghost Ship (1943)
# The Seventh Victim (1943)
# The Fallen Sparrow (1943)
# Cat People (1942)
Pretty good credentials for someone I might like to hire if I were making a noirish film in the 1940s!
— Steve
June 14th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
I saw this a long time ago (like twenty years) and don’t really recall. I more recently have seen The Leopard Man, Cat People, Curse of the Cat People, I Walked with a Zombie and Isle of the Dead and liked all those, the first two probably the most. Saw The Body-Snatchers as a kid. I’ve been meaning to get this set.
June 15th, 2010 at 1:04 am
I purchased the box set a few years ago. My absolute favourites are CAT PEOPLE/I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE/THE BODY SNATCHER/BEDLAM. None of them are ‘bad’, but there are certainly some that I rate higher than others. 7th VICTIM has some fine moments, but even for a very short film it does meander a bit. That said, the extended pursuit sequence towards the end of the film is really effective. That’s how I feel about ISLE OF THE DEAD.; very slow start but building to a really scary conclusion. The best thing that I can say is that if I had to get rid of a load of B&W horror movies from my collection, I really wouldn’t want to lose any of this set.
Just remembered what British movie critic Leslie Haliwell said about 7th VICTIM: ” Anyone who could have explained exactly what the movie was about would have won a lot of bets in Bolton in the late 40s” !
June 15th, 2010 at 1:49 am
SEVENTH VICTIM is almost an existential mystery. It may be the only horror movie ever made about ennui, the effects of boredom so profound it leads to a kind of pre Sartean existential angst which the heroine’s sister has tried to relieve with a flirtation with Satanists. Pretty heavy for a horror movie I’ll grant.
I may have been more prepared for it since I had read several good books on horror and suspense films before I first saw it and knew what I was getting coming into it.
And Ben Bard’s death as the little man who ties to help Kim Hunter is still powerful: “He was a kind little man in his way. I made him go down that hall into the darkness. I made him do it.”
Tom Conway’s Dr. Judd is unique in the film as well. He isn’t presented as a particularly nice or likable person, but by films end he and the rather ineffective poet played by Erford Gage prove to be remarkably strong moral forces, and I don’t think anyone who has ever seen it is likely to forget Jean Brooks and that haunting last line from John Donne: “I run to death and death meets me as fast,/And all my pleasures are like yesterday”
But if you were expecting things that go bump in the night, I’m sure it was a shock when you got things that go bump in your subconscious, and it may be the only horror film ever made in which evil is defeated by sheer humiliation (though THE UNIVITED does something close). Conway and Gage simply remove the mask from the Satanists and reveal them for the vain, silly, and pointless pretenders they are. It should be anti-climactic, but it isn’t — it’s as powerful as any exorcism or stake through a vampires heart.
June 15th, 2010 at 6:21 am
I’m with Dave on this.
7th VICTIM has resonance. From the opening lines by John Donne, echoed at the end, through the background-noise chants of the schoolgirls (repeating French lessons conjugating he verb “to search”) the creepy pre-PSYCHO shower scene, the dead man on the subway… this film gets me. And the final thing that goes “bump” in the night is a real grabber.
One of my all-time faves.
June 15th, 2010 at 8:06 am
I find myself in almost complete agreement with David, and mercifully for King I’d forgotten his fat-headed assessment of CAT PEOPLE (if ever a jump scare was built up to and integral to a film, the air brakes in CAT PEOPLE are up there with the 1946 GREAT EXPECTATIONS jump scare and the PSYCHO shower scene). THE SEVENTH VICTIM isn’t as well-paced as CAT PEOPLE (which by the way needs theater sound to be fully effective…Lewton and Co.’s debt to radio is as obvious as Lewton’s own WEIRD TALES influences–he contributed fiction to the magazine), but it moves along fine by me…I jumped out of my first attempt to watch it only because Ted Turner’s “Colorization” monkeys had been at that print.
As to whether it’s noir–it’s almost definitive noir. Hell, by any reasonable measure, M is noir, and it considerably predates this one.
ALONE IN THE SHADOWS the Scorcese documentary about the Lewton Unit is included in the more recent versions of the box set, which should–really should–also include the few other Lewton Unit films at RKO, MLLE. FIFI (a wartime espionage drama) and YOUTH RUN WILD (JDs…you’re seeing how Fawcett Gold Medal is being limned here, aren’t you?)…no good reason not to have thrown in one more disc. The one to Not judge the rest by is the unintentionally ridiculous THE GHOST SHIP.
June 15th, 2010 at 8:09 am
Interesting everyone wants to call THE BODY SNATCHER (after Stevenson) THE BODY SNATCHERS (after Finney). I prefer this, the best Karloff/Lugosi film (though I do like several others, particulaly the exotically noirish if rushed THE BLACK CAT).
June 15th, 2010 at 9:24 am
In the meantime, let me ask this question. The movie’s discussed on a number of noir-oriented blogs and websites. Is it noir, or it did come along too early to be a true noir? If it is noir — and I understand this full well — it was only accidental. Who knew what noir was in 1943?
The question I would ask is who knows what film noir is in 2010.
I’m one of those cranks who thinks that the idea that there is a properly definable entity known as film noir is simply a popular delusion.
The term film noir replaced the term melodrama but does it do a better job in defining those films than the original term did? I don’t think it does.
June 15th, 2010 at 9:27 am
Interesting notion, that “film noir” means “melodrama”–rather the opposite in some ways…melodrama is “hot” while noir is “cool”…melo- implies colors, even if not literally, implying garishness, while film noir is about stark blacks and whites…
June 15th, 2010 at 9:29 am
Ha! Wonder where I picked up the misconception that melo implied color, rather than melody, song…the garishness of opera rather than primary colors.
June 15th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Todd, I saw Body Snatcher when I was a kid, but only recall that scene with Karloff and Lugosi (you know the one). This was before I had any idea who Val Lewton was (*or even James Whale, for that matter).
Can I mention here Jacques Tourneur’s film Night of the Demon? This is my favorite post-Lewton, Lewton-type film, if you will. Have watched it four times.
What was The Body SnatcherS? I seem to recall there was a Hammer film on the same subject.
I was a little disappointed with Isle of the dead. The premise is so great though. But I found the Robards characters rather irritating. Liked Karloff though, also Ernst Deutsch, who was having a nice run then (generally there is excellent casting in these films).
June 15th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
What do the rest of you make of the re-appearance of Dr Judd from CAT PEOPLE? On the face of it he appears to be the same guy, and yet there are fundamental differences (we’d better leave the question of his fate at the end of the previous film for another time). In CAT PEOPLE he is introduced as a trustworthy character who turns out to a unprincipled letch. Here he is initially shown to be rather shallow and selfish, but this is exposed as a pose, and he is revealed as the film’s centre of moral authority. I wonder how many members of the original audience expected him to be the main villain.
June 15th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
I’ve never cared for this film of Lewton’s either, and I’m happy to admit this, somewhat publicly, after all these years. I saw the Lewton films on their original release and still watch with much pleasure “Cat People,” “I Walked with a Zombie,” and “The Body Snatchers,” but I’ve no particular fondness for the others. The film should have appealed to me but I’ve always fond it visually uninteresting and terminally dull.
June 15th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Bradstreet, I think the Dr. Judd character was just Lewton trotting out a contract player with whom he worked well.
Walter, having grown with the MTV generation, you may be too young to appreciate the measured pace of 7th VICTIM
June 15th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Dixon
To back up a few comments, as to the existence of film noir, I suppose that in spite of your being cranky about it, you realize that that ship has already sailed?
For better or worse!
The question then becomes, if noir films do exist, what is noir?
Luckily we’ve discussed that here already, in three parts, with a lot of comments following each post:
https://mysteryfile.com/blog/?p=1038
https://mysteryfile.com/blog/?p=1049
and
https://mysteryfile.com/blog/?p=1049
and I recommend that everyone go back and read these.
Not that everyone agreed on the definition of what noir is, of course, but there is a certain body of work that is Noir; many other movies that Aren’t; and a few that are Noir in some viewers’ views, and Aren’t according to others.
THE SEVENTH VICTIM is not in THE FILM NOIR ENCYCLOPEDIA, by Alain Silver, Elizabeth Ward, James Ursini, and Robert Porfirio, for example.
The reason I know is that I just purchased a copy; it came out just over a month ago, and it’s right here at hand and I’ve been browsing through it every so often ever since.
But no matter. When I watch the movie again, which I will soon, I will be sure to tell you whether it’s Noir or Not.
As for Noir taking over from where Melodrama left off, I’m among those that would differ.
Here are a couple of definitions from the Internet, neither as colorful as Todd’s, but that’s OK, too:
(1) A drama, such as a play, film, or television program, characterized by exaggerated emotions, stereotypical characters, and interpersonal conflicts.
(2) Sentimental drama marked by extravagant theatricality, subordination of character development to plot, and focus on sensational incidents. It usually has an improbable plot that features such stock characters as the noble hero, the long-suffering heroine, and the hard-hearted villain, and it ends with virtue triumphing over vice.
Once again, I know it when I see it, and Noir is not Melodrama, nor Vice Versa. I just can’t make the connection reach that far.
— Steve
June 15th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
I’m confused. Was there a film The Body Snatcher and a film The Body Snatchers? Which is the Lewton? Wasn’t there a Hammer version of this story called The Flesh and the Fiends, or something like that?
June 15th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Curt
Rummaging through IMDB to be sure I have my facts correct:
THE BODY SNATCHER (1945), singular, was the Val Lewton production. Based on the Robert Louis Stevenson novel, and starring Boris Karloff and Bela Legosi.
Where the confusion comes in, and I am willing to be corrected if I’m wrong, is with the movie INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (1956), plural, the science fiction movie based on a story by Jack Finney, and having nothing to do with the earlier film.
THE FLESH AND THE FIENDS (1960) was indeed the Hammer Films take-off of the real life graverobbing pair of Burke and Hare, whom inspired Stevenson of course for his story, much earlier on.
— Steve
June 15th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Okay, I see! I don’t think I was confusing The Body Snatcher with The Invasion of the Body Snatchers, it’s just that I was thinking there was more than one snatcher! Or is Karloff the only one in the film? I remember his “Burkeing” scene, but that’s about it.
Has anyone seen the Hammer version?
June 15th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
THE FLESH AND THE FIENDS is a great film, but not a Hammer I’m afraid. It was a Baker & Berman production, who cashed in on Hammer’s success with a series of shockers, including THE BLOOD OF THE VAMPIRE (1958), THE TROLLENBERG TERROR (1958) and JACK THE RIPPER (1959). However, THE FLESH AND THE FIENDS was directed by John Gilling and starred Peter Cushing – both Hammer regulars
June 15th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
Burke and Hare also inspired THE DOCTOR AND THE DEVILS and a few more. It’s a famous story and the Stevenson just the best known version. There is also a 1961 version of the tale THE ANATOMIST with Alistair Sim as Dr. Knox.
As for what is and isn’t noir I’m on record with my opinions, but I will point out the primary influences on noir were German expressionist silent film (notably Lang, Siodmak, Wilder, Dmytrick, Hitchcock), Warner’s gangster films and social drama (Huston,Hawks, Siegel …), and French cinema that grew out of both (Dassin, Negulesco, Tourneur …).
Steve
Silver lists the earliest noir film as 1927’s UNDERWORLD.
As for THE SEVENTH VICTIM I think it is less noir than a late flowering of German Expressionist cinema, but I wouldn’t really argue very hard against including it. I would still argue the first true noir is MURDER MY SWEET (1946) only because that’s the one everyone sat up and noticed as something different and imitated (it would have been THE BIG SLEEP but release was delayed a year on that). The films that come before that I think of as proto noir much like some of the stories before Poe’s “Rue Morgue” that are very close to detective fiction (Hoffman in particular).
But choosing the broader definition lets you get in films like THE MALTESE FALCON that nobody really wants to leave off.
June 15th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
Watching Hammer
Thanks for catching my goof re Hammer in Comment #22. It’s the one thing I didn’t double check. Saw the director and the cast and let my fingers keep on going.
— Steve
PS. Just so no one misses it, here’s a blog you should all go visit: http://watchinghammer.blogspot.com/
June 15th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
You realize that that ship has already sailed?
For better or worse!
That’s what they said about the Titanic!
I’m not that well versed in film noir that I could put up solid arguments against its existence but humour me while I put up the best arguments that I can.
No Film Noir without Hitler: Filmmakers familiar with German Expressionism headed for the hills, the Hollywood hills, that is, when the Nazis took power. Those Central European directors used those techniques they had learned in Berlin in whatever film projects Hollywood offered them. So much for the style.
No Film Noir without Democracy: The tragic, obsessive, doom-laden heroes of Shakespeare’s tragedies, Hamlet, Macbeth, Lear, Othello, were Kings, or Princes, or Generals. Democracy demanded that such tragic heroes be reenvisioned as ordinary men: army veterans, private investigators, insurance salesman. So much for the substance.
But what really bugs me about Film Noir is the retrospective nature of the exercize. The term may have been coined in the 40s but it only took root in the 70s. Are we to feel sorry for those poor saps making movies in the 40s and 50s who didn’t realize they were making noir? If they didn’t know they were making noir how can we take seriously their own critical judgement of what they were doing?
To me it all smacks of other French imports of the 70s, by Barthes (Death of the Author), and Foucault, and Derrida, and Lacan. American universities, and their English Departments in particular, are only now starting to recover from these ridiculous infections. Film studies? Have you read any of that stuff?
I haven’t seen The Seventh Victim so I can’t comment. I did just look at the climax of the movie on YouTube and I did like the way a sound effect and a reaction shot were used to signal perhaps the most important point in the movie. Subtle but clear.
June 15th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Well, they didn’t call it Noir back in the 40s, that’s for sure, but whether they knew they were part of a Movement or not, I have an idea that each of the directors involved were aware of what the others were doing — and that audiences were going to see their films.
Re your last paragraph. The movie gets choppy just before the end, but here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjGPoFxsMrI
Thanks for the tip that it was there. This is the most I’ve seen of this movie in 17 years!
June 15th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
Are The Flesh and the Fiends and The Doctor and the Devil both about Burke and Hare? This is quite involved! I was pretty sure Flesh had Peter Cushing, and I guess the tendency is to think anything he was in at that time was Hammer. Are they both color films?
I’ve been meaning to get the Lewton set, will have to do so finally. This debate about Seventh Victim reminds me of how my sister finally watched Rosemary’s Baby last year after reading a net article proclaiming it the scariest film of all time–and she didn’t see what the fuss was about!
June 15th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
All film genres are artificial and most are imposed long after the films in question were made. As for noir whether they called it that or not many of the directors were consciously using certain elements and ways of telling a story that fell within the boundaries of a certain kind of film.
That doesn’t mean they were consciously making film noir — but they were consciously making films that reflected elements of German Expressionism, French films like JOUR LE SEVE, crime films such as THE MALTESE FALCON, documentary films such as CONFESSIONS OF A NAZI SPY, and reflected the post war reaction of returning soldiers and the problems they faced. The films we think of as noir were not made in a vacuum, even if the name noir was later imposed on them.
Certainly there were a few accidental noir films, but I do not think you can argue that Huston, Dmytryck, Tourneur, Wise, Fleisher, Siodmak, Lang, Hitchcock, Hathaway and others were not aware of making a new kind of film in a new way in the same sense that western film makers took the success of John Ford’s STAGECOACH as an excuse to make so called ‘adult’ westerns.
The early musicals that dominated the talkie era weren’t made as a body of work either, never the less they are a clear genre that fed on each other in the same way THE THIN MAN and BULLDOG DRUMMOND STRIKES BACK spawned the comedy mystery genre by their success.
As for proving film noir doesn’t exist you can ‘prove’ anything by choosing your argument including Bishop Berkeley’s proposal that all existence is only a dream. Still, I don’t think I’ll go out in the street and wait for an eighteen wheeler to test that one anytime soon.
June 15th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
DOCTOR AND THE DEVILS starring Timothy Dalton is the story of Knox and Burke and Hare based on an unproduced screenplay from 1940 by Dylan Thomas (released in an attractive illustrated volume). FLESH AND THE FIENDS was also known as MANIA (1959) with Donald Pleasence and George Rose as Burke and Hare. THE ANATOMIST (1961) features Alistair Sim in the Knox role and George Cole in the Burke part. As might be expected Sim plays the role with a wry sense of humor.
And for anyone who doesn’t know, Knox, Burke, and Hare were all historical figures much like Deacon Brodie who inspired Stevenson’s Jekyll and Hyde.
June 15th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
Oh, I see. Doctor and the Devils is a modern film (1985), also with Julian Sands, Stephen Rea, Jonathan Pryce and Twiggy (!). And the living screenwriter was Ronald Harwood, who won an Oscar for The Pianist. I don’t recall this film at all. It has rather a Hammerish title, though, doesn’t it?
Yes, the Burke and Hare story is very interesting. Seems like something that should have been filmed as well by Tim Burton and Johnny Depp.
June 16th, 2010 at 11:11 am
I’m not sure but I think Burke and Hare make an appearance in Hammer’s DR. JEKYLL AND SISTER HYDE. Surely, one of the most original variations of that classic theme.
June 16th, 2010 at 11:15 am
Indeed you are right, Ray. And this one really IS a Hammer film!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068502/
— Steve
PS. I’ve never seen it, and I think I should.
June 16th, 2010 at 11:22 am
I’ve been checking, and here’s where a multi-region DVD player is going to pay for itself in one swell foop. You can buy a new copy of DR. JEKYLL AND SISTER HYDE from Amazon-US for just under $300, or go to Amazon-UK and buy one for around $15.
You know what I’m going to do, don’t you?
— Steve
June 16th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
DR. JEKYLL AND SISTER HYDE is such a good film – Jekyll & Hyde, Burke & Hare, and Jack the Ripper all rolled into one – with a witty little Brian ‘The Avengers’ Clemens script. Well worth a watch!
(Thanks for the plug BTW! Great blog you have here.)
June 16th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Since we’re trotting back through the various versions of the Burke & Hare story, has anyone else seen the Todd Slaughter version THE GREED OF WILLIAM HART? Not really one of his best, but some hilarity to be had from the ham-fisted re-dubbing of the movie. Apparently the movie characters had the names of their real-life counterparts, but the 1940s British censor objected. This led to all mentions of Burke, Hare or Knox being altered on the soundtrack. Unfortunately. the person doing the redubbing sounds nothing like any of the actors. The result is something like:-
Ah, do you have something for me, HART?
Well, Dr COX, me and MOORE might just be able to find you a fresh body…
Excellent work HART!
And so on…
December 5th, 2010 at 3:30 am
I’ve actually got an original 1943-44 season RKO exhibitors’ promo guide that lists unproduced Lewton films, including The Amorous Ghost and others. Surprised that so little about this info seems extant.
October 13th, 2012 at 11:41 am
This movie was great! I just finished watching it here bit.ly\OXu11k