Traum ohne Ende

I watched this again after a too-long gap of about six years. Were there many anthology films made during this time? "Flesh and Fantasy" (1943) comes to mind but "Dead of Night" is superior. The plot involves an architect who arrives at a country house for work, in a recurring nightmare, and he's terrified because he knows how this nightmare is going to end... At the house there are a number of guests and they soon fall into talking about their own horrifying supernatural tales. The stories of each of the guests range from semi-comical (the "golfing" episode was my least favorite, although there was one chilling moment even in that one) to the terrifying (the best of the lot, imho, is the 'ventriloquist' episode). Some have speculated that Rod Serling probably drew heavily on "Dead of Night" when writing a number of scripts for "The Twilight Zone" (as just one example, the scene where the dummy bites the hand of the ventriloquist is copied almost exactly in the TZ ep "The Dummy"). I'm not sure if this movie was a blockbuster at the time, but I think it was ahead of its time in terms of depth of concepts, in that there is more than meets the eye.

Dead of Night is one of those movies that actually started a genre. Tame to today's standards many of its short stories can be traced to horror plots today; most notably the ventriloquist dummy come to life (Michael Redgrave sequence). This movie takes horror where it should remain...the suspense film. We can see all the blood and gore today but why do films like The Six Sense (1999) or What Lies Beneath (2000) remain a success? Everyone has their own fears and thoughts of horror; and the thought of that fear and horror adds to the suspense film in all ways more thansay the breed of horror slasher films...probably best portrayed by Psycho, Halloween and the Scream Films. Dead of Night isn't a Hitchcock film but it uses the same actors of his England days and uses the same suspense techniques seen in his tv series. Check this film out and watch it from the perspective of the 1940s viewers eyes and see why it was popular. Also check out Cat People (1942)and M (1931)

I remember being bowled over as a kid when I first saw this classic. I know now that American cinema of the time simply wouldn't risk confusing an audience with such a complex (stunning) wrap-around and a string of separate stories. Then too, that was before humanoid dummies became a horror cliché, and so the effect was doubly jarring. Nonetheless, I'm still astonished at how well Redgrave shades his stages of madness, certainly Oscar worthy in some universe. That episode may be the creepiest and most difficult to figure out in the whole horror genre.

But what really amazes me now is how such a completely collaborative effort could have turned out so well—11 writers, 4 directors, and a large cast of principals. Usually collaborative efforts amount to less than the whole; this one, however, is considerably greater than the whole. After so many comments, there's no need to echo the obvious, except to point out that true horror depends on the psychological and in no way depends on buckets of blood. In my book, the movie's as good now as it was 60-years ago.

I was fortunate enough to see this movie the way it was meant to

be seen: I was about 13 and my brother was 11. We were

supposed to go to bed, but we snuck and watched this movie. We

were also fortunate enough to see it on PBS (of all places!) uncut,

without commercial interruption. Perhaps, the fear of being caught

by our parents added to the experience. We sat by the flickering

light of the TV set (on low volume) in the dark. Needless to say, by

the end of the movie we thought our heads would explode with

fear. I thought my eyes would bulge out of my sockets. It was a

definitive bonding experience for me and my brother. Strange that

fear should be so relished! Up to this day, when posed with the

question, "You wouldn't do that?" Our response is in that devilish

high-pitched voice, "Wouldn't I? WOULDN'T I??" Thanks to Anchor

Bay putting out the dvd double feature of Dead of Night with Queen

of Spades (also excellent!), I have just watched it again and that

old friend fear comes right back. Hugo Fitch lives on!

The architect Walter Craig (Mervyn Johns) drives to a farmhouse in the countryside of London and he is welcomed by the owner, Eliot Foley (Roland Culver), who introduces him the psychiatrist Dr. Van Straaten (Frederick Valk), his friend Joan Cortland (Googie Withers), his young neighbor Sally O'Hara (Sally Ann Howes) and the race car driver Hugh Grainger (Antony Baird). Craig tells that he has the sensation of Déjà vu since he had had a nightmare with them in that house but one lady is missing. However Mrs. Foley (Mary Merrall) arrives completing the characters of his dream.

The skeptical Dr. Van Straaten does not believe in supernatural but the guests tell supernatural events that they have lived. Grainger had a car accident and then a premonition that saved his life; Sally had met a ghost during the Christmas; Eliot and his wife had lived an evil experience with a haunted mirror; two golfers that loved the same woman and decide to dispute her in a game, but one of them dies and haunt the other; and Dr. Van Straaten tells the story of a ventriloquist with double personality that is dominated by his dummy. But when Dr. Van Straaten accidentally breaks his classes and the power goes out, the nightmare begins.

"Dead of Night" is an original horror tale that is certainly the source of inspiration to "The Twilight Zone", "Tales From The Crypt", "Vault of Horror", "Creepshow", "Tales From the Darkside: the Movie" where the screenplay discloses a main story and many segments. The final twist is totally unexpected and a plus in this little great movie. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Na Solidão da Noite" ("In the Solitude of the Night")