There's a dead guy found at the start on the decks of the ship before it leaves port and there appears to be no investigation whatsoever into his death. In fact I think the ship leaves port and the body is buried at sea. I don't think his death was even mentioned at the inquiry. Bizarre!🐭
shareThe story exists as it does because producer Val Lewton faced two realities which studio RKO had imposed on his entire series of films: a $150,000 budget, and a targeted running time below 70 minutes. The need to keep the picture moving dispensed with wasting time on real-life factors such as policemen or death investigations!
Although I love CAT PEOPLE, I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE, and THE CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE, my most favorite Lewton remains THE GHOST SHIP. For someone who retains a natural distrust of authority, this narrative is can't-miss: A fatherless young officer faces a terrifying transition from being his new captain's surrogate son, to becoming an object of the superior's vindictive wrath -- trapped at sea aboard a ship, among which none of the crew will challenge their obsessive captain's boundless authority, even over life and death.
That needs no supernatural elements in order to be gripping. At least, not for me.
Most great films deserve a more appreciative audience than they get.
... and a targeted running time below 70 minutes.Oh yes, I'm aware of that. But quite honestly looking back at it from a 2015 perspective the plot therefore, seems somewhat ridiculous and at the very least incredibly contrived, which IMO, made it far less suspenseful.🐭 share
But quite honestly looking back at it from a 2015 perspective the plot therefore, seems somewhat ridiculous and at the very least incredibly contrived, which IMO, made it far less suspenseful.
Yes well done! The 1940's perspective would have clearly been more insightful on this issue. Just accept the rubbish dished up, because it's a 70 minute film and try to remember it's suspenseful.🐭
shareThat reply demonstrates the limitations of your 2015 perspective: Much of the 21st-Century rubbish that passes for "film" today doesn't prepare younger, modern viewers for the narrative subtlety and restraint common in the 1940s -- and which applies to THE GHOST SHIP.
"Try to remember it's suspenseful," you say? THE GHOST SHIP is suspenseful; at least it is for viewers who don't expect older movies to be as overstated and in-your-face as are the modern ones that seem to have shaped your standards. It was you, in another IMDb thread discussing this same picture, who claimed that Finn, the mute, was left aside and ignored at the ending; and when I posted that you had somehow forgotten Finn's presence within the preceding scene and shot, you responded:
No. I don't remember seeing that at all, but I'm happy to take your word on it occurring.
... doesn't prepare younger, modern viewers for the narrative subtlety and restraint common in the 1940s -- and which applies to THE GHOST SHIP.LOL! From that, rest assured I no longer take your arguments seriously.🐭
spookyrat1:
Scopewatcher's right-----you younger viewers (well, some of y'all, anyway) don't appreciate old films because you're used to seeing everything you want to see in them nowadays. And because you're used to everything being loud and rapid-fire fast. I liked this flick, plus it was nice and creepy all on its own, without the usual supernatural overtones of Lewton's other films (which I also like.) To say you no longer take someone's arguments seriously because you don't understand where they're coming from is ridiculous.