The Fall of the House of Usher

"Found Objects" are those things generally discarded or ignored that somehow possess an intrinsic artistry, and this "Quota Quickie" certainly qualifies. Dashed off in what looks like a couple of weekends on whatever locations were handy, with badly-synchonized sound and wretched acting of pointless dialogue, it nonetheless conveys a genuine creepiness I found oddly haunting. The photography reminds one of the French New Wave, which came along a decade later, with starkly realistic images contrasted with baroque set-ups and disorienting editing. The story -- as much as I could understand -- offers a nightmarish progression through some sort of curse, and a mockingly down-beat ending.

VERY loose adaptation of the Edgar Allan Poe story. Jonathan (Irving Steen) pays a visit to childhood friend Roderick Usher (Kaye Tendeter). He finds Roderick terribly depressed and his sister Madeline Usher (Gwen Witford) suffering some kind of illness. And what's in that old house in the woods?

They took the main characters from the book, added new ones, changed the ending of the story but it still works. It is slow-moving, static and has bad dialogue but I've seen worse. There's an eerie atmosphere throughout with spooky music and depressing dark sets. The acting isn't half bad but only Witford went on to a career in the field. It all ends on a dark and stormy night which is actually quite chilling. A pretty good unknown horror film. I give it a 7.

Decades before independent companies were regularly shooting horror films cheaply on location, the mysterious Ivan Barnett made "The Fall of the House of Usher" in and around a mansion in Hastings, Sussex. There are conflicting stories about its production. It seems to have been shot in 1948. Jonathan Rigby claims it played (with an "H" certificate) "for one week in the Tottenham Court Road" in 1950. This implies the cut version released in 1956 wasn't its premiere. The actor playing Roderick Usher is credited as Kaye (not Kay) Tendeter. Almost certainly he and the rest of the cast were, with the exception of Gwen Watford, local amateurs. Barnett was a talented director and a particularly skillful cameraman. His lighting is highly atmospheric. In theory he could still be alive. But what became of him after the early 1960s? (Update: Subsequently it was revealed that Barnett died 13th September, 2013, i.e. only months before the screening of the film, complete with its "H" certificate, at the BFI Southbank, London, on 22nd December, 2013).

I watched this one night by myself after coming across it by chance. I thought I might as well give it a go and kill some time. I was actually quite impressed by the film. It wasn't some amazingly famous movie with an all-star cast. It was a small and fairly amateur film that won me over with its quiet but definitely present unease. It's ever-present darkness, both physically and mentally, sets the mood for a bleak and unsettling movie that uses visuals more than dialogue. It's an obscure and relatively unknown movie, but it's one of the best amateur thrillers I've ever seen.

This film is one of my favorite versions of "House of Usher." Unlike the Roger Corman version, this film treats the viewer with a variety of sets and locations with unique concepts and ideas not widely known. This film was a great effort for its day, with beautiful black and white cinematography and a gothic mood. This film is probably one of the closest to the original story, with some great new ideas thrown in, like the hag in the woods and further explaining the family curse. The music is really cute and catchy, further giving a feeling of the renaissance time, and it's quite catchy (by the end of the movie I was humming the main theme, as it was repetitive throughout the film). Through the brilliant (and realistic) thunderstorm sequence we are led up to a great climax, and I love the ending. The originality of the whole film, and the last words must've left people talking about the film as they left the theatre, discussing what they thought really happened. I was surprised that this film had so little success (if it did, I know not about it, it's quite rare you see). I wonder if it had international distribution, or if it was made by a very small company and didn't get the attention it deserved? This is definitely an excellent film and I highly recommend it to anyone, except perhaps some of today's modern youth(what is the world coming to? Can't they recognize fine art when they see it?)