Dead of Night

Dead of Night is responsible for so many films made in the horror genre, because it was the first that took a huge gamble and pieced several unconnected stories together within a narrative that loosely keeps them together. Tales From The Crypt, Vault of Horror, Tales That Witness Madness, The House That Dripped Blood, Torture Garden, The Monster Club, Creepshow, Tales From the Darkside: the Movie are just a few of the films that owe part of their existence to this little British film. The frame story details how a man goes to the country for a weekend only to say he has been there before and met the people there before in his recurring dream. He is thrust into a discussion between those that believe in his dream and one lone doctor(psychiatrist) who seems able to explain all phenomena in a scientific way. Each of the guests then in turn tells a story about their brush with the supernatural. Most of the stories are very inventive(although by modern standards cliched as they have been copied many times)and entertaining. Two of the stories really stand-out. The first is about a mirror that shows you a different room as you look into it, and the other about a ventriloquist with a split personality. The other stories are good, and one is humorous(perhaps out of place but fun nonetheless). Acting is solid throughout with Mervyn Johns as the man subjected to the same dream over and over again. Richard Valk excels as the doctor, and Michael Redgrave is outstanding as the man able to give the gift of speech to a "dummy." Also of interest is the pairing of Basil Radford and Naughton Wayne form Hitchcock's The Lady Vanishes. They DO compliment each other so very nicely. A wonderful, eerie film.

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!

Anthology n.: a collection of selected literary pieces or passages of works of art or music.

This classic horror-anthology from Britain's Ealing Studios is composed of four separate stories, composed around a group of strangers that is mysteriously gathered at a country estate where each reveals their chilling tale of the supernatural. But even after these frightening tales are told, does one final nightmare await them all?

The horror-anthology has proved a difficult sub-genre, usually made with only limited success, because it's notoriously difficult to get it right. If only one of the stories fails to deliver, the whole piece is dragged down. But this multi-part horror effort from Britain's Ealing Studios still proves to be very effective and justifiably still is one of the most revered and successful horror anthologies ever made. It features appearances by many of the best British actors of it's day, including Mervyn Johns, Ralph Michael, Basil Radford and Michael Redgrave. With four different directors at the helm, not all four segments are equally effective and are quite different in tone, but they are all good in their own right. The standout for me, not judged in terms of the best, but certainly the most frightening story of the four, is "The Ventriloquist Dummy" by Brazilian born Alberto Cavalcanti (he's simply billed as Cavalcanti), the only non-British director involved in DEAD OF NIGHT. Michael Redgrave plays a renowned ventriloquist who descends into an abyss of madness and murder, when his dummy takes on a life of his own. One of the most unsettling stories I've ever seen.

The somewhat less effective (if only slightly) mirror sequence by Robert Hamer shows something very scary can be achieved with very basic means. When Ralph Michael looks in the mirror, to his horror he keeps seeing the reflection of a dark Gothic room lit with candles, completely different from the room he's standing in and slowly, he begins to loose his mind. Ultimately, it is the extremely unsettling music score that makes it work. Basic but very effective.

As with most anthologies, it's difficult to keep track of the main interwoven storyline, because between the different stories we're told, your mind is still very much trying to grasp what you've just seen. This is probably why the genre became increasingly unpopular over the years. With the exception of "The Ventriloquist Dummy", don't expect anything particularly scary, but it did leave me quietly disturbed. The peerless British cast and the witty, slightly old-fashioned tongue-in-cheek dialog makes this very pleasant and appropriately unsettling viewing.

Camera Obscura --- 8/10 --- 10/10 for "The Ventriloquist Dummy"

For years I've wondered if I really saw a movie that served as the source for innumerable childhood dreams and fears. I tried telling folks about seeing this British film on TV in the 1960s, but it was so jumbled in my memory that I really couldn't describe it properly. I knew it led to a lifelong dread of ventriloquist dummies, but I couldn't figure out how that tied to an architect at a country house party.

For no apparent reason today I put "ventriloquist movie" into yahoo and skimmed down to Dead of Night - British 1945. At long last I knew that I hadn't imagined the whole thing - and boy am I relieved! I'm also delighted to find that I've been "haunted" by a classic of the genre that has had a big impact on so many others.

I'm looking forward to ordering it and watching it again.

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.