Shock Corridor

Samuel Fuller's direction helps keep SHOCK CORRIDOR watchable but the script is never valid enough to make the film anything more than an interesting experiment that is only half successful.

PETER BRECK does a good job as a newspaper reporter with only one thought on his mind. ("Who killed Slade in the kitchen?"). He goes undercover at a mental institute in order to uncover the truth. His girl friend CONSTANCE TOWERS agrees to help get him get incarcerated on the pretense that he's her brother and tried to rape her.

That premise alone is hard to make believable the quick succession of events that lead to Breck's being shoved into a psycho ward. Director Fuller lets the camera discover several other rather interesting patients but none of them are fully developed as characters we can care about.

Without revealing the disturbing ending, let me just say you're liable to get hooked into watching the film if you happen to catch it from the start. It's worth a watch, if only to see where all the story strands are going.

But when it's all over, you have to wonder whether anyone can really take the story seriously. Good try though--and Breck really gives his all to his volatile bursts of temper.

How we should read this movie?

Is it really important to know why a famous psychiatrist could have helped the journalist to get into the asylum? Is it really important to have a realistic, tied up scenario in this movie?

I don't think so, and what really comes out of it is a wild political message that ultimately depicts the madness of the outside, normal society, and how it deals with everything that is different. To me, the director's intent is to tell us how sick our society is (at least, "was", at his time) and, for that, he chose the metaphor of madness, and very specific characters to tell us the message. The main characters are the mad guys, and the journalist and the crime are only excuses to lead us into this outside world of rejected people. The scenario structure seems to be rather simple and rounded as any political speech, so after we enter the asylum, we are presented to the mad characters (the war veteran, the black guy, the physicist), one by one. The only exception to this straightforward scenario line is the journalist girlfriend, but her appearance shouldn't have a different direction (in the critical, political sense), and she gives us a really funny, sexy, and ridiculous scene where the hollywoodean love is ridiculized (she is performing her daily striptease, at the same time we know she's suffering from love, note how the scene is shown in a cold, distant and downward camera).

Definitely, it is a political-pulp-fiction. As such, a good movie.

Just don't try to see it as a standard Hollywood movie.

The striking thing about this film is just how unnervingly barmy the characters are, and even more amazing is just how they seem so apt with Sam Fuller's sledgehammer direction. Written, directed and produced by Fuller it weaves a cautionary tale of how faking madness just might bring about the downfall of ones own sanity, and here it begs the question of if the price of fame has no boundaries to those who clamour for glory ?. The film cleverly manages to make the viewer think about the thin line between sanity and insanity and this is shot with such style it lingers long in the memory after the credits role. Some great sequences allied with clever switches to {almost surreal} color make this more than a curiosity piece because of the directors "American Primitive" reputation.

Interestingly dark 8/10.

A journalist, determined to expose a murder, gets himself thrown into the mental hospital in which it occurred. While there, he has to fight to retain his sanity. This exposé and the murder, they're McGuffins. The film's biggest flaw is that these McGuffins are left so untouched (does Barrett actually believe that anything he might prove by interviewing mental patients will stand up in court?), which makes the allegorical part of the film stand out a bit too much. Fortunately the allegory is powerful and is well done. Amazingly, these major criticisms of American society, delivered in monologues by three very good performers, exist in this film, made in 1963. The tightness of the post-WWII generation was weakening a bit at the time, but the kind of things that are expressed here, exposing the paranoia and bigotry and the belligerence of the American hoi polloi, it's daring. I suppose it was allowed because this was obviously meant to be an exploitative B-movie and play to a small audience. Shock Corridor is probably most famous for its style, and that fame is very much deserved. The harsh lighting is gorgeous, as is all of the cinematography, in general. The choppy editing, probably influenced by the French New Wave that was taking place at the time, is also rather good. The acting is adequate. It's certainly not an actors' film, and the leads are easily forgettable. However, some of the inmates give good performances. Hari Rhodes as Trent is probably the most memorable. He plays the first black student at a Southern university (not the historical one, but a fictional composite). He was driven insane by the bigotry around him, and now he thinks he's a Grand Dragon of the KKK (and he thinks he invented it). The film does fall into that mental hospital movie of giving all the inmates wacky problems. I don't know of any earlier mental hospital movies offhand, so maybe this set that trend. In this film, it's not nearly as annoying as it is in movies like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, which was, despite Shock Corridor, the parent of movies like Girl Interrupted and The Princess and the Warrior. 9/10.

To describe SHOCK CORRIDOR as lurid would be an understatement: it plays like something torn from a supermarket tabloid. An ambitious reporter feigns madness and has himself committed to an insane asylum in order to investigate a recent and unsolved murder--and once inside he encounters everything from hateful attendants to a whole ward of crazed nymphos, and all the characters are presented in the most explotational tone possible.

But SHOCK CORRIDOR has a lot more going for it than just lurid exploitation. Director-writer Sam Fuller was renowned for his gutsy, no-frills, straight-to-the-point style, and in his hands SHOCK CORRIDOR becomes a vision of America as a society that places so much emphasis on conformity and success that people crack and go mad under the strain. And Fuller's cast is remarkable: even when the story goes ridiculously over the top, they perform with such sincerity, conviction, and realism that you can buy into the story in spite of its improbabilities.

SHOCK CORRIDOR will not be to every one's taste, but even those who dislike it will probably find themselves grudgingly fascinated by the film, and although the film transcends such labels fans of explotational and cult cinema will also find lots to enjoy. A classic of its kind. Recommended... but don't say I didn't warn you.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer