Fri 10 Apr 2015
THE SKULL. Amicus Productions / Paramount Pictures, 1965. Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Patrick Wymark, Jill Bennett, Nigel Green. Screenplay by Milton Subotsky, also co-producer, based on the short story “The Skull of the Marquis de Sade,” by Robert Bloch (Weird Tales, September 1945). Director: Freddie Francis.
A reasonably good job was done in adapting Robert Bloch’s short story to the screen, but at 83 minutes long, it’s at least a half hour longer than it needs to be. And for a movie to be scary, it certainly doesn’t bode well when a sizable chunk of it can be cut out with nothing being noticed.
But it’s always good to see Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee in a movie together, no doubt about that. This time around, Cushing plays a collector of occult and inhuman items who is offered an absolutely unique item, the skull of the notorious Marquis de Sade, while Lee is it’s previous owner — who most definitely does NOT want it back. He is more than happy it was stolen from him.
Better, though, than either of these two actors in their respective roles is Patrick Wymark as Marco, the unctuous middleman (or thief) in the sale of the skull to Cushing. His death, a dramatic fall down a stairwell through several panes of colored glass, was for me a highlight of the film. That was also the turning point for me. The movie simply ran out of steam from that scene on.
On hand is plenty of scary music, flashing lights and moonlight, and a skull mysteriously floating in the air, but none of these are of any avail when the story itself doesn’t make sense. Horror is a state of mind, and there have to be rules that have to followed, even in terms of the supernatural, not so?
Read the story (follow the link provided). It’s only six pages long, and in those six pages it packs up to 20 or 30 times the punch of this highly acclaimed but in the end not entirely convincing horror film.
April 10th, 2015 at 11:50 pm
With that cast, Cushing, Lee, Wymark, Nigel Green,a Bloch story, and Francis directing, I was really disappointed in this one. That’s what happens when Amicus and not Hammer makes one.
April 11th, 2015 at 7:25 am
Wymark was a particularly talented and versatile actor (watch him in one of Subotsky’s other ‘single-story’ movie THE PSYCHOPATH, where he plays the hero, or even better catch up with the 60s TV show THE POWER GAME, where he is brilliant as the power-hungry, ruthless businessman).
A lot of the problems with this movie come down to the script. I seem to recall Francis claiming that Subostky’s script underran quite markedly, and the whole ‘dream sequence’ episode was invented by the director to pad out the running time. It’s a great scene, but it is undoubtedly padding. You get the feeling that you could tell this story very well in about twenty minutes–about the length of time it would take in one of Amicus’ portmanteau films.
Cushing’s great in this. He often played either the hero or villain in his horror movies, but he also shines as the victim. The sweaty, uncomprehending terror he displays in the dream sequence is very effective.
April 11th, 2015 at 4:59 pm
No disagreement on Cushing’s performance, and this would have made a fine sequence for NIGHT GALLERY, but they add very little to Bloch’s story to accommodate feature length.
I wonder if this was originally intended for one of those portmanteau films like TALES OF THE CRYPT and Bloch’s name persuaded them to try it as a feature instead? As a film it feels like an extended vignette more than an actual story.
Subotsky usually fared better as a producer than talent.
April 11th, 2015 at 6:23 pm
I believe Milton’s work and the assessment of it, is off the mark. He was sensitive and erudite but found himself writing, and producing, work on a generally lower budget and of an exploitable nature. No one knows, without seeing the screenplay, or reading production notes, the exact nature, and strengths and weaknesses, of the original written plan.
April 11th, 2015 at 7:04 pm
Given that Milton Subotsky’s name has come up in the comments several times now, I’ve added his name to the credits at the top of the review. I’ve also found the website at the other end of the link below to be a good assessment of Amicus Films and Subotsky’s role as one of the partners in the venture:
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/feb/13/british-horror-film-studio-amicus
April 12th, 2015 at 7:04 pm
Barry,
I am not knocking anyone for being a producer. A good producer brings a great deal to his works and is quite important. Someone once asked what Arthur Freed brought to GIGI and was directed to the entire cast, crew, director, writers, and Lerner and Loewe’s music. That was the producer’s contribution.
GONE WITH THE WIND is a good example of a producer’s film, not a director. Men like Thalberg, Zanuck, and Goldwyn are as important as any auteur or actor.
But producer’s best talents aren’t always as talent. Aaron Spelling was highly successful as a producer, his acting career ended early. I think Subotsky’s best work was what the got on screen, not in the words said there.
April 12th, 2015 at 10:45 pm
Aaron Spelling was a helluva writer. The Intro’s and extro’s on Dick Powell’s Zane Grey Theatre, among many more complex works testify to that. This stuff is targeted, and I have pretty good idea about Mr. Selznick’s contributions, which were as you describe. Zanuck was also a writer, of many names (credits) and considerable story telling ability. The other men, Goldwyn and Thalberg were executives. Not quite the same thing, but also important.
April 15th, 2015 at 8:23 am
Unfortunately, the meddling with the scripts even when Subotsky commissioned Bloch, an excellent and experienced scrpter, is well-known, and the Amicus Blioch adaptations suffer for it…TORTURE GARDEN, with the unfortunate stolen title, being about the only watchable result.
April 16th, 2015 at 11:34 am
I always loved Robert Bloch’s creepy stories like “The Skull.” And I enjoyed all of Bloch’s Lovecraft Mythos stories, too. He had a flair for that kind of weird fiction.
August 4th, 2015 at 7:19 pm
This movie rally freaked me out when I saw it on tv as a kid back in the early 70s. Despite it’s faults it really does possess an inherently creepy quality.
Just to nitpick your review, it wasn’t Marco who crashed through the stained glass, but the caretaker, played by the best Gollum of them all, Peter Woodthorpe.
August 4th, 2015 at 7:43 pm
Bobj
Thanks for the correction. I’d have to see the movie again to be sure, but I’m not doubting you. It’s just that I’ve seen too many movies since then, and that was only four months ago. I simply don’t remember!