How in the world is this good? (spoilers)

I'm not going to try to talk you into liking it. Sometimes one just dislikes a film and there's nothing to be done about it. I happen to dislike RAGING BULL, a film that is very highly thought of by many. I find it labored and self-indulgent, so what can you do?

That said, I'd submit that there are different kinds of "good." Obviously, THE BLACK CAT doesn't approach the level of all-around quality of, for example, IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT, from the same year. THE BLACK CAT is more on the level of "guilty-pleasure" good. It's a fast-paced, economical but stylish little potboiler, and definitely a "quicky." Granted, the plot is somewhere between senseless and incomprehensible, which accounts partly for both the pace and length; more time and detail to examine motivations and events would only further expose these deficiencies.

I would take issue with some of your criticisms as nit-picky. What, for example, would more detail about the bus crash provide? A dissolve between the bus going off the road and Lugosi's pronouncement of the driver being dead indicates a passage of time, so what would a depiction of his examination of the driver add? The girl is injured, and the point is to get the characters into the house so she can get medical attention (in service to the plot) and so the story can get going (in service to the audience). All very efficient.

On the subject of character development and performances, again: economy. By the time the two main characters encounter each other, we know all we need to know. Lugosi's line on the train, "I go to visit an old friend" - and his reading of it - makes a long-harbored grudge clear. The details of it, which are revealed in due course, are merely that: details. Likewise, with Karloff. From the moment we first get a good look at him, the character is fully defined: pure, selfish (and lecherous) evil, and it's all accomplished by nothing more than his silent entry into a room (aided by some very clever editing). What more, at that moment, do we need to know?

I'd also add that Lugosi displays some subtle sensitivity in, for instance, the scene in which he and Karloff view the body of his late wife. The pain of this revelation is obvious in his halting reading of the line, "...and why is she...like this?" as a single tear rolls down his face, as is the insincerity and vanity of Karloff's response: "I wanted to have her beauty always. I loved her, too." Karen is the ultimate - and quite literal - "trophy wife," long before the term was ever coined. I think it's a great moment.

As to the "forgotten" cult, it - and its fate - is duly acknowledged, if only verbally: "Five minutes...and Marmaros, you and I...and your rotten cult, will be no more!" Presumably unaware of the undermining of the former fort, they'll all die, too, in the explosion.

I'll take issue with your criticism of Ulmer's direction, as well. He provides a number of wonderful flourishes that elevate the film from its written material. For example, Karloff's previously-mentioned entrance (and the prior "tease" in silhouette), which coveys both the evil of the character and an other-worldly air, as a combination of cuts, dissolves and tracking shots gets him in the room without ever showing him actually walking into it; he almost seems to float. Another neat little touch is the closeup of Karloff's hand gripping the arm of the sculpture as Manners' wife rather lustfully kisses him; the focus shifts from the couple to Karloff's grip tightening - accompanied by a musical crescendo - which not only communicates that his own lust is rapidly escalating to obsession, but accentuates the emphasis on visual design that pervades the entire film.

Also Karloff's tour of the mausoleum in the basement (with only moody music accompaniment) as he revisits his now-deceased former "wives" or "companions;" this, too, is character development, as it tells us graphically of the way he treats women as possessions and literally uses them up, while only leaving to our imaginations the specifics of the demise of each. His tender stroking of the cat he carries as he regards the beauty of the corpses with both nostalgia and dispassion provides an unsettling counterpoint, and even a perverse sexual undertone. Then, in a visual and aural reversal, as Karloff and Lugosi travel back through the basement and upstairs after their encounter in the chart room, Ulmer gives us only the disembodied voice of Karloff, both chastising and sympathizing with Lugosi, while a POV tracking shot with neither character visible propels us forward. This is very definitely "style." Ulmer also provides a visual rhythm throughout which integrates very effectively with the musical scoring.

I'd have to go on too long to address all your criticisms, and I do agree with some of them. The "comic relief" of the bickering gendarme is both questionable and distracting, and those few minutes might have been better spent addressing other issues. But my point is this: although it's highly melodramatic and far-fetched, I find it a very stylish, effective and - yes - atmospheric little thriller that accomplishes a lot with very little, and contains much to appreciate.


Poe! You are...avenged!

I love this movie. I find it goes beyond guilty pleasure. The only fault is the young couple who act if they think they are in a screwball comedy.

It has a feeling of Camus' the stranger about it. Nothing wasted and everything to the point. I am always amazed when I see the running time is only an hour because so much is packed into this great film by a truly great director. A very underrated and very forgotten movie. The modernism is wonderful the atmosphere is haunting, the hints of what happened between Karloff and Lugosi in the great war are intriguing and do not need require a flashback.I have no problem with anyone not liking a movie but I feel that to call ulmer's direction mediocre is a slight agaisnt a great director.

The whole point of the movie is the cat and mouse game between Karloff and Lugosi. I see no reason to see their history or develop their characters. They know who they are and what there motivation is. Do we always need a flashback showing what happened in the past. Do we need to see scenes of what happened in the bunker in the war? No. All we need to know it was a pascendale or ypres.

I think movies that are made now take us by the hand and don't let us fill in the blanks.

I am sorry you did not like the movie because it is both a great and important film.

I think Lugosi's final line it has been a good game sums it all up.

I also love the quasi digital clock. Best prop ever.

To doghouse. I feel I am just added to the points you made so well. I had never seen the raven before and rented the Black cat on cd because I had not seen it for at least 10 years. It had the raven on it as well. I thought it was the Corman movie and almost didn't watch it, but I did and was delighted to see it was the movie you mentioned, a movie I had never heard of. I fully agree with your bookend concept. I can actually believe that Lugosi escapes in the black cat and becomes the warped human in the raven.

RB

[deleted]

Your problem is that you were watching this film for plot/characterization when you should have been watching it for atmosphere/visuals. All too common a mistake. Sometimes I worry about your lack of appreciation for great visuals, gloede.



This post brought to you by The Yoyodyne Corporation

To be honest I thought it was just an okay movie the first time around. But then I watched it a second time and it was a lot better. Sometimes movies are like that with me. I'm just not in the right mood when I watch them so I don't find them any good. Then I watch them a second time and realize there was absolutely nothing wrong with the movie but with me. Maybe you should give it a second chance and you may have the same experience.

it's the camp factor and Boris + Bela that make it watchable





so many movies, so little time

Not bad - 7.5

"She let me go."
~White Oleander