The Fall of the House of Usher

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?)

I bought (for £22) a standard 8 sound copy of this film and showed it at a meeting of Group 9.5. We attempt to show films that are not normally shown on TV, so this was a rare opportunity for the members to see this British version. Graham Murray was at the show and told me why it doesn't appear on TV in the UK. He worked for Granada TV and was on the panel that rejected the film as being too poor to show on TV-but he bravely sat through the show that night. Despite the rather crude technical quality of the film,I liked it.

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 caught up with this on TCM as part of their October 2012 schedule. It's really not that bad, given that it was made on a budget of about two shillings thruppence and someone decided to tack on that ghastly footage in the gentlemen's club to pad the length. Granted, it's not quite the story Poe wrote, but taken as an old-dark-house thriller that just happens to be about the House of Usher... Anyway, I've seen worse photography in higher budget films, the amateur actors in the story proper were reasonably competent (especially young Gwen Watford, who went on from this film debut to better things in film, on stage, and on the Beeb), and the climax closeups were quite convincing--as well they should be, since many of the closeups came from WWII newsreel footage carefully edited.

The plot of this curious version of the Poe classic differs considerably from the original story, including a number of plot elements and characters that are not in Poe's story at all. Some of the acting seems almost amateurish at times, and the entire production was clearly carried out on a very small budget.

However, where this film excels is in its' sense of creepy atmosphere. Indeed, in that respect it reminded me of Carl Theodore Dryer's 1932 film, "Vampyr". Those who have seen that most peculiar horror film will understand to what I refer. In that film, as well as in this one, style and atmosphere completely dominate character and story to the point where the latter two elements almost cease to matter at all. Both "The Fall of the House of Usher" and "Vampyr" are prime examples of how much a creative director can achieve even without benefit of special effects or a large budget.