Change Your Image
Mudsharks
Reviews
Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia (1974)
Whither the Crucial Missing Scene?
The following commentary should only be read by those who have seen the film. It is, in a sense, a spoiler for something that doesn't exist in the film's current release.
I first saw Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia here in Manhattan on the day it opened so many years ago. After the reviews came out, the studio immediately pulled the prints from the theaters and cut the most CRUCIAL scene in the film.
The original release contained a scene wherein upon discovering his lover dead, the Warren Oates character makes love to her corpse. He does so tenderly, and with deep regret. Then he buries her along with Garcia's remains in the grave he's just desecrated.
It is in this moment that he slips into madness. If you watch the film again, note the transition from the "pre-grave" character and the "post-grave" one. (Also note the somewhat disjointed transition from his holding his dead lover in his arms, to his leaving the graveyard.) I'm sure you could view his character change as simply being a reaction to her death. But if you imagine the missing footage, his impending lunacy has greater depth, and makes more sense. It also gives the film a different resonance than his other films that employ a machismo/revenge motif.
It's always driven me crazy (so to speak <G>) that this most important scene was taken out of the film, denying the audience a true understanding of the Oates character in the last third of the film.
I eagerly await a DVD release that restores this footage. I hope it hasn't been lost forever.
House on Haunted Hill (1959)
THE classic William Castle horror flick
William Castle will always hold a place in my heart for reasons two-fold.
First, he majored in horror movies when I was a boy in the fifties. Second, and more importantly, he was the master of the "gimmick" horror flick. The Tingler, 13 Ghosts, Mr. Sardonicus, and House on Haunted Hill all had a special gimmick to bring in the audiences.
The last was his masterpiece. A truly frightening film. Not scary due to special effects, but due to atmosphere. In this day and age the advancements in special effects, especially CGI, allow any director with a budget to "show" you the horrific. Back in the fifties, horror had to be suggested on the screen, but created in your gut, in order to work. On haunted hill, you could feel the house in your gut.
SPOILERS AHEAD
By setting up not only the characters but the house itself as a possible source of malevolence, the horror felt real. The head in the box, the ceiling that dripped blood on the hands of the next possible victim, and the walking skeleton all trod the line between the possibilities of having been planned by someone in the house, or being actions of the house itself.
The old woman floating across the basement floor may be the scariest moment in all of the fright films of the fifties.
FILM END SPOILER - GIMMICK EXPLAINED
As to the gimmick, unfortunately you'll never get to enjoy it. But when I saw this as a boy in 1958, it was the coolest thing I'd ever seen in a motion picture palace. I sat in the balcony as the film's final scene unfolded. A skeleton rises out of the acid pit in the basement and approaches Annabelle Loren (Carol Ohmart) the wife of Frederick Loren (Vincent Price). It manouvers around her until she, retreating, walks backwards and falls into the acid pit.
Then, to my utter amazement, the skeleton walked out of the frame and began to float out over the audience towards the balcony. As it neared the top, you could then see Price on screen, operating the fake skeleton that he'd used to murder his wife. The fact that you were viewing a fake skeleton on wires in reality, while on screen Price manipulates a device consisting of wires and pulleys made the combination of cinema and live action a seamless and logical fit.
Obviously, when you see the film today, you'll miss the thrill of celluloid becoming flesh. Or lack thereof.
But it represents the pinnacle of William Castles use of a gimmick to make his films stand out from the crowd. The fact that it appears in the film that was his best regardless of gimmicks is what makes House on Haunted Hill well worth a look.
BTW, in case you're wondering, I'll illuminate the gimmicks attached to the other films I mentioned.
For 13 Ghosts, glasses were handed out that resembled early 3-D glasses. Made of paper with one red and one blue lens, patrons were advised to put on the glasses and cover one eye if brave enough, the other eye if frightened of ghosts. The film was black and white, the ghosts depicted in red. So if you looked through the red lens, the ghosts dissappeared. The blue lens allowed you to view the ghosts.
For Mr. Sardonicus, the story of a man who robs a grave for a valuable ring, there were two different final reels available to the theatre management. When it was time for the story's final reel, the house lights would come up and an employee would take to the stage to conduct a vote. Depending upon the will of the audience, Sardonicus would be saved, or meet a horrible end.
The Tingler, was shot in black and white, but blood in the film was in color. The lynchpin of the story is the concept that fear, if not alleviated by a scream, can kill. A creature, the tingler, grows on your spine when you're frightened, and is eliminated when you scream. The gimmick? The theatre seats were wired with a mild electrical shock. But more than that, in the final scene, a tingler would scurry down the theatre aisle.
All of these followed House on Haunted Hill. But the films themselves were just ok, or worse. House however, stands on it's own, gimmick aside. See it.