Vengeance en différé

For some inexplicable reason, this telefeature is but rarely accorded the respect it merits. In point of fact, it is a most accomplished, gripping, and well acted affair, from the days when a "made for TV" movie, could still boast performers, writing, and technical credentials of the first water.

The story is an intense, psychological study of a young man suffering from hysterical blindness following the death of his professor father in a fire. Set in a large, shadowy, Victorian house, this very Gothic story hinges on the sibling rivalry between the young man and his spinster sister, both of whom blame themselves, in different ways, for their father's demise. Eventually, the young man's sanity begins to give way, in the face of a series of inexplicable hauntings, which may, or may not be supernatural. Only the denouement will tell.

With its pronounced subtext of repressed, family guilt, the film has literary antecedents in the work of Shirley Jackson, Walter De La Mare, and Nathanial Hawthorne.

Starring a cast of major (big screen) movie and stage actors, this film has everything that is conspicuously absent in current television: an excellent musical score, evocative photography, muted lighting, accomplished art direction, an interesting premise and script, intelligent dialogue, (gasp!)and a very good sense of pacing.

Add to that, a baseline story that improves on the novel upon which it was based, (yes I read it) and you have a viewing experience very different from the "made for TV's" of today, which are,(I'm told--since I don't watch them) an endless stream of tedious, politically correct, AIDS,Anorexia, and spouse abuse victim propaganda studies--I believe the catch phrase is "victim of the week" stories.)

All in all, "How Awful About Allan" serves as a sad reminder of what was still artistically possible in the world of commercial television, in the not too distant past.

Within the limitations of television, this was a tidy little entertainment. How Awful About Allan transcended the crummy cheapness that marred Made-for-TV movies from their historical onset. This pleasantly scary story was better than average because of its workmanlike performances, its unnerving story, and the fact that its main character, Tony Perkins, is not totally sympathetic.

Even if you peg the reasons that Perkins has hysterical blindness (and it's wonderfully frustrating seeing the blurred images he's seeing) from the start, the movie accomplishes what it must do right from the start--it causes you to give a damn. You watch because you must.

Finally, there's a special place in my heart for "Olive," played by the late, great Joan Hackett. She was a lovely woman whose quirky, passionate performances always seemed to lift the quality of a film an extra notch.

Anthony Perkins and Julie Harris are just fine, too.

So, get to a dollar store or the Wal-Mart dollar DVD kiosk, grab a copy of How Awful About Allan and swing by the warm blankey department--you're gonna need it.

Anthony Perkins became legendary and immortal thanks to "Psycho" in which he portrayed Norman Bates; a mentally very unstable boy with a more than unhealthy bond with his mother. I honestly wouldn't go as far as to call this typecasting, but in this slick and underrated TV-thriller Perkins depicts another mentally troubled young man and once again family issues are to blame for his condition! During the intro of the film we witness how Allan (Perkins) stares almost emotionless at the house fire that kills his father (a profound doctor) and mutilates his sister Katherine. From the shock, and probably also the guilt, Allan spontaneously loses his eye-sight. I didn't know this was possible, in fact, but the physician at the mental hospital carefully explains that Allan's blindness is purely psychosomatic. Eight months after the tragedy, Allan returns – arguably too soon – to his parental house to live with his sister who underwent plastic surgery to cover the burning wounds. Soon after his arrival, Allan becomes convinced that someone is trying to scare him away or even kill him, but his blurry visions can only identify a vague shape that wanders around the house. Is it the student tenant that his sister accepted into the house to generate an extra income? Or perhaps Katherine's old lover who returned from abroad and whom Allan never could stand? Or, who knows, perhaps Allan's fear of getting killed is only psychosomatic as well? "How Awful about Allan" is a typical TV-thriller from the early seventies, meaning that it benefices from a rather simplistic but nevertheless absorbing story, an atmosphere relying on suspense instead of action or gore and a handful of dedicated acting performances. The biggest trump here is that we, the audience, witness practically all the attacks from Allan's point of view and thus also only see vague shapes and blurred faces as well. Through this minor detail, director Curtis Harrington ("Games", "What's the matter with Helen?") upholds the mystery until the climax and makes it difficult for the viewer to make up his/her mind regarding Allan's true state of mind. There are a few powerful and creepy sequences, notably when a petrified Allan tries to drive off in a car and forgets for a moment that he's as good as blind. "How Awful about Allan" is perhaps not entirely on par with the absolute greatest TV-thrillers of the early seventies, but it's a good film and establishes the versatile talents of both its director Curtis Harrington and protagonist Anthony Perkins.

Generally I don't crib, but I've seen absolute gibberish being rated pretty highly if it comes out of a big studio with a big cast. Now this movie here is not that special, but it is well directed, has great acting by the cast and some decent camera work. The story seems slightly predictable but it is credible and works for this kind of movie. The reveal at the end does come across as a surprise.

Anthony Perkins live up to the role and shows his range as an actor here. This is a very good movie, albeit a short one. Full marks the the director and his crew.

This is a pretty good made for TV film. Tony Perkins is always worth watching. He so underplays his character that for a long time, I couldn't stand him. There are lots of people who care about him and he seems so ungrateful. Then weird stuff begins to happen. He is so filled with guilt, feeling he is responsible for the fiery death of his abusive father and the disfigurement of his sister, we can see the guilt, there on his sleeve. Though he is aware of his anger, he still tries to go on. At one point, he really begins the process to get himself put back in the institution which held him since the fire. People try to help him, but there is a constant undercurrent of deception. But we can't put our fingers on it. Perkins does so much with his facial expressions and, of course, Julie Harris is one of America's best actresses. There are many twists and turns and questions and they are subtly put forth. There is no heavy handedness here, which would have ruined the film. See it if you can.