I'd LOVE to know how this got released
This came out in 1963 before there was a ratings system (that started in 1968). The killings are (by 1963 standards) pretty gory and bloody. How did this slip past the Production Code?
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Dementia 13 (1963) Discussion > I'd LOVE to know how this got released
I noticed that as well. Night of the Living Dead has a reputation for being the first explicitly gory film but I think this was just as bloody.
I've been waiting for you, Ben.
I agree. Dementia was bloodier than Night. I know back then horror films were considered kiddie fare so adults just ignored it.
shareHorror was NOT "kiddie fare" back then! It was hugely popular with all ages. I know because my father was a horror (and sci fi) fan, and we attended many of these films in the theater or at the drive-in. Both places would be packed. Most horror was aimed at family audiences but didn't back off on whatever gore was allowed.
Check out the bloody bathroom scene in "The Tingler" (1959)~all that red especially startling when contrasted with the rest of the movie being in b&w. There was gore and gruesomeness to be found in many films. "Psycho" and "Peeping Tom" were released in 1960 and "Homicidal" in 1961. I'm sure others could suggest equally violent films. One year after "Dementia 13", audiences watched as Bruce Dern's character was slaughtered in "Hush... Hush, Sweet Charlotte", including having his hand hacked off.
That's why I don't get Gen XY moaning about being "traumatized" by movies they viewed when younger. Baby Boomers did just fine when dealing with increasingly violent films AND TV episodes. I have yet to hear anyone from my generation claiming to be "traumatized". So, where did XYers pick up the word and the notion?!
*** The trouble with reality is there is no background music. ***
"That's why I don't get Gen XY moaning about being "traumatized" by movies they viewed when younger. Baby Boomers did just fine when dealing with increasingly violent films AND TV episodes. I have yet to hear anyone from my generation claiming to be "traumatized". So, where did XYers pick up the word and the notion?!"
Good question. I'm a baby boomer myself and I saw "The Vampire Lovers" when I was 8, "The Abominable Dr. Phibes" when I was 10 and "The Exorcist" when I was 12 and I wasn't "traumatized" or scarred for life. I did have nightmares for a few nights but that was it. People seem to believe that kids are so fragile that one horror film will damage them for life which is ridiculous. Like they say in "Scream"--horror films don't make people killers just smarter killers:) And I still think horror films were considered only for kids back then. Most of them got a PG or G rating and played at children's matinees on Sat. and Sun. afternoon.
There were no ratings back then, not till the late Sixties. A film was a film though some were relegated to the drive-in if they were considered racy/risque or too violent, which didn't stop families from attending.
I figure that you were born near the tailend of the Boom. I was quite a bit older, being in my early 20s when "The Exorcist" was in the theater. I recall wondering what the fuss was about; the most frightening part (or at least "ickiest") is the medical tests. It's low on my list of horror films though the book gave me some chills. It's definitely an overrated film. Heck! We saw the magician's head spinning in "Captain Sindbad" long before Regan's did that!
The only film I can recall as disturbing to my younger sister, me AND my mother is "The Blob". I think it's because you knew it wasn't a man in a costume and wondered how they did it. The changing colors and size made it truly creepy. That's the only movie that ever gave me nightmares. I sometimes wonder if it was as unsettling in a movie theater or if it was because, at the drive-in, we were in the middle of a wooded area, several miles from towns on either side.
I still absolutely disagree that horror movies were aimed at children or even just teens; like Universal's monster movies of the Thirties, they wanted an audience comprised mainly of adults, with the competitivenes with TV being an added incentive to bring the children for a family outing. Hollywood would not try for such a relatively small audience if it was only youngsters. Remember: Children and even teens likely didn't have the funds or the transportation to go to movies, at least the majority of them. I don't recall a theater ever having only youngsters in it unless it was a special matinee.
Of course, I'm gauging from the Midwest. Who knows? Maybe big-city children/teens tended to go to movies by themselves, unlike this region.
*** The trouble with reality is there is no background music. ***
You're right. Ratings didn't exist until 1968. The first film rated was "Dracula Has Risen from the Grave". Full of gushing red blood, throats being town open, Dracula bleeding from the eyes, being impaled on a giant golden cross. The rating? G. If they weren't aimed at kids explain the rating. Also William Castle and Roger Corman made horror films targeted directly to teen audiences in the 1950s and into the 1960s. Hammer horror films were lumped with them. It wasn't until the 1970s that horror films got R ratings and became more adult.
I was born in 1962 which I believe was the very end of the Baby Boom. One article said I was born just at thee end--another said I was too young! Go figure!:) I'm surprised "The Exorcist" didn't scare you that much. I guess it had to do with you being in your 20s. You did make a good point though--the hospital sequences WERE the most disturbing parts of the movie.
As for "The Blob"--I saw a brand new print of it at a revival theatre back in the 1990s. The print was in perfect shape--the colors were strong and the sound was loud. I HATED it! I was bored silly and found the special effects pretty laughable. Also I've never been a Steve McQueen fan so him being in it didn't help.
I live on the East Coast and I grew up in a small city in Massachusetts. We had two neighborhood theatres and no kid would be caught dead going with their parents to a movie:) We just went with our friends or alone (if you were a geeky film buff like me:)). It's interesting how movie-going is different in various parts of the US.
You didn't see "The Blob" in the Fifties when the effects were startling! Naturally, by many decades later, it's not impressive to you; that's not at all surprising of course since you would have gotten blase about violence and special effects. In the Fifties, we were used to men in costumes and makeup and stop-motion creatures, which still had an edge since most people didn't know HOW they were created.
The Blob is a free-flowing being with no emotions, no thoughts, just the instinct to consume living beings. It has only one weakness, which at least gave them a chance. (They didn't have a handy-dandy snow-making machine as in the Eighties remake, which went for all-out gore.)
Steve McQueen was pretty much unknown when he starred in "The Blob". As much as he hated the film, it gave him recognition with audiences. I'm not a fan either~never have been. I classed him with Elvis Presley as a non-priority to see their movies. I've watched his movies since, but I don't think we went to see his movies ever back then. Maybe my father and mother didn't like him either! I never thought about that till now. I recall seeing his series "Wanted: Dead of Alive", and recently, I watched a couple of episodes. At least I liked the guest stars.
Low ratings didn't have much to do with the target audience back then, not as much as they seem to today, when people think horror can't be PG. "G" was in place because some films were becoming more sexually explicit, with nudity and stronger language; "G" signalled that families didn't have to worry about a film.
"G" never meant "just for kids"; "G" is for a general audience, meaning families and other people didn't have to worry about what they would see and hear. Even today, I know adults who won't watch a movie with "bad" language, gore of any degree, etc. I myself avoid a lot of subject matter that might be considered routine to younger generations. Remember that, back in the late Sixties, "X" was applied to some movies that later were re-rated "R" and even "PG-17"; ratings had a long way to develop.
Again, maybe the Midwest didn't tend to have "kids-only" audiences; for us (my family, our neighbors, church friends, etc.), movies always were a family event. The only kid audiences I recall were when we could buy booklets of tickets to summer matinees in @1963-64, during which they showed such fun flicks as "Two Little Bears", "Sabu and the Magic Ring", "Five Weeks in a Balloon", "Flight of the Lost Balloon" and "The Big Circus". That was fun!
But, "13 Ghosts", "The Tingler", "House on Haunted Hill" and others always had a mixed audience. Our family always have loved horror films, and my cousins and I watched them from very early childhood. Early TV was filled with old movies since channels needed to pad schedules. My mother teases me about how many times my sister and I watched "The Beast with Five Fingers" and "Donovan's Brain"=}
*** The trouble with reality is there is no background music. ***
My dad LOVED horror films so he always watched them on TV or at the drive-in (remember those?). My mom hated them so he took me to see them. It didn't matter that I was only 8 or 9 and the film was R rated:) Blood and gore never bothered me. I was always aware that it was fake so I just shrugged it off.
shareI don't recall that my mother ever has been a film fan, but she would be along, of course. My father was definitely a film buff, as was his mother. My grandmother died before they married, and my father died equally young. I know it's silly, but I wish that he had lived long enough to see "Star Wars" because he loved science fiction so much. He would have loved "SW" and "CE3K". He would have liked seeing science fiction make a big comeback.
As for horror films: I think we saw all of them at the theater and at drive-ins. Sometimes we'd go to a nearby town that also had a nice drive-in in the middle of a wooded area. Both drive-in locales made it very creepy at times. After my father's death, I can recall Mom and I going to double features such as "The Boy Who Cried Werewolf"/"SSSSSSS" and "An American Werewolf in London"/"The Howling". I find that the only time blood and gore bother me is in films such as "Saw" and others in which they slice-and-dice human beings and make the audience root for their demise. That's beyond cringeworthy.
I think I'll always love the old-style horror films. I've loved TCM's Fridays this month, with a marathon of wonderful movies each week. Last night, I watched an assortment including "White Zombie" (with TRUE zombies, not zomboids) and "Psychomania". FUN=}
*** The trouble with reality is there is no background music. ***
I saw "SSSSSSS on TV when I was young. It was OK. "The Howling" and "An American Werewolf in London" I saw separately at walk-in theatres. Where I live most of the drive-ins are gone. I believe there are only two left in the entire state! The ones I went to were all located near highways and most are either malls or office buildings now. A drive-in in a heavily wooded area sounds great--especially for horror films:) I remember for a while they were actually showing X rated films at the drive-in in full view of the highway!
BTW--the "Saw" films are graphic but they have a point. They don't encourage the audience to enjoy the violence. Jigsaw (the villain) is killing people or putting them through tests because they don't value life. It brings up some interesting questions about who is guilty...and if they should be punished. Anyways the first one isn't that graphic. The worst scene is when someoe has to cut off his own leg. You don't see it at all. All you see are the reactions of the two characters on screen and it's almost impossible to watch.
I love TCM too and love that they're showing good old-fashioned horor films. I already have most of them on DVD but it's fun to see a station actually showing them. I caught the last part of "The Cat People" a few days ago and "The Bride of Frankenstein" Saturday night. Caught "Psychmonia" last year on TCM. Silly but fun. And "White Zombie" is just easily a masterpiece.
[deleted]
Maybe it's just your awareness--I was a student at UCLA when the Exorcist came out. After seeing that movie, I could not sleep, had nightmares, esp when my dog would bump my bed crawling under it to sleep sometimes. I was scared to pieces. Some months later, there was a notice in the school newspaper that there was therapy available in student services for kids who were having issues after seeing that movie! I think the more religiously you were raised, the more the themes got under your skin.
But boomers were not immune to having problems after seeing scary movies. After seeing Wait Until Dark, my sister and I were unable to turn the lights off for months! We placed nightlights around.... Boomers either dealt with their fears or laughed them off until they outgrew them. Until my school offered the counseling for the Exorcist's victims anyway. I did not have time to go, and eventually, the fears subsided.
People should be smarter or more aware of themselves, and know/admit when scary movies are not their cup of tea. It's not a deep human failing to admit you are affected by such frightening images--rather than curtailing others' freedom to enjoy that entertainment.
[deleted]
Didn't seem gory at all. It isn't like they showed any murders take place. A swinging axe never actually was shown to make contact with anyone.
shareThey did indeed show the murders. One man's head is cut off in full view and a woman is repeatedly axed when coming out of the water again in full view. You must have seen an edited print.
share