MovieChat Forums > Shock Corridor (1963) Discussion > pretty surprised this gets such praise.....

pretty surprised this gets such praise...

posted 14 years ago by hungerartist
18 replies | jump to latest

i'm not knocking it too hard, because i did enjoy the film, but what elements do people really think make this such a classic? i suppose the racial, and political overtones give it a place in history, but overall, plot, character development, even acting, were fairly bad. it's hard not to compare a film like this to others dealing with similar themes, or with similar elements of the same era. for psychological unraveling, repulsion makes this look like an 8 year olds cartoon. it was hard to tell if there was any humor that was intentional, but realistically, if there was any, i didnt find any of it amusing *spoilers* (except the nympho bit!) then on to the mystery aspect.. seeing as how theres absolutely nothing in the film or mention of why the murder was mysterious, or important enough to warrant him being there, how are we even supposed to get "sucked in"? Without ANY build up of the mystery, it falls fairly flat in that area as well. what are some opinions as to why this is a good or engaging film? the more i think about it, the worse it becomes..

[–] dalldorfw 14 years ago

I liked 'Repulsion,' but found 'Shock Corridor' more intense.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lorenzomarmo 14 years ago

I think Fuller wanted to suggest that John's ambition was already something pretty abnormal and obsessive, so he didn't catch insanity as a flu, but was sorta predisposed to it... Still, I don't think the movie makes this point clearly enough and the character development was very schematic!

I found the movie pretty brave, considering the date of its release, and quite enjoyable, but its inventiveness was marred by a rather dull screenplay and a plot structure lacking any real suspense or true shocks. All in all, I don't think this movie deserves its masterpiece fame.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gbennett5 14 years ago

All one has to do is watch 1948's "The Snake Pit" and 1975's "One Flew
over the Cukoo's Nest" to see how bad this movie is. Does Breck know
anything but two extremes - screaming and lying still? Towers wasn't
much better, nor was anyone else. Laughably bad dialogue, tedious,
talky scenes that go on FOREVER. A mess.

[–] cada123 14 years ago

>One doesn't catch mental illness like a cold, merely by hanging around an insane asylum. Mental illness is not an infectious disease.

Very true, at least not the kind they are depicting (catatonic Schizophrenia), altho possibly he could have traumatized by the experience and developed a PTSD (Post Traumatic Distress Disorder). However, at one time, many people did believe that mental illness was contagious if you were exposed to it; in fact, there are some (non-mental health professionals) who still think so today. And several decades ago, Schizophrenia was more of a catch-all diagnosis than the more specific one it is now. Perhaps it is this aspect of the movie that a previous poster meant by "considering the date of its release."

[–] gbennett5 14 years ago

Just because people "thought" it was contagious, doesn't mean that it is.
Clearly, we're supposed to buy that Breck goes mad. Had a better actor
been in the role, and the script had been more "horror" OR more intelligent
(it's neither), the film might've been intriguing. It isn't.

I don't dislike Breck as a rule (I thought he was fine in "The Big Valley",
and other roles), but here he's simply terrible. But so is the rest
of the cast.

[–] mackjay2 13 years ago

Have to agree. I think this film is terrible and I can't understand the praise it gets. Fuller made several films that are far superior to it

[–] therealamericanbeauty 13 years ago

I think most here are missing the point entirely. Fuller didn't set out to make a realistic portrayal of the pathology of mental illness with Shock Corridor, nor did he set out to make a whodunit-style mystery. He was painting an allegory of everything wrong with America in 1963, specifically xenophobia, racism and nuclear anxiety, as represented by each of the three witnesses to Sloan's murder. Quite an ambitious undertaking for a B movie production, but that's why he was Sam Fuller. I'm sure Fuller would have been the first to tell you that the movie itself speaks to nothing profound surrounding mental illness, and it becomes quite clear once you latch onto Fuller's agenda that the mystery itself is not terribly important, and that becomes reflected in the way the movie plays out.

Obviously the themes are still relevant today (will probably be for a long time to come unfortunately) and the effect of the movie now, I believe, is still as searing as it was when it was first released. And it's quintessential Fuller, combining his primary thematic concerns and deep pessimism with typically rich, brilliant visuals (shot by The Night of the Hunter DP Stanley Cortez) that perfectly showcase his pulpy, tabloid visual style. I'm not sure if I quite believe it to be a "masterpiece" myself, though I think it's pretty darn close. Either way it's a key 60's American film, and perfectly representative of Fuller as an artist.

[–] birdman3501 13 years ago

I'll concede that as silly as the depiction of madness is in the film, your point about Fuller not wishing to make a "realistic portrayal of pathology" is fair enough. Clearly you are correct on this but, in turn, this doesn't give the film a free pass from charges of silliness. I also agree that the murder mystery is certainly just a narrative framework for Fuller to explore and address the social issues of the day that concerned him. Still, on the this latter point, I'm not so quick to dismiss this as a flaw since the film as a piece of drama DOES have some call to craft a reasonably engaging murder mystery even if it's just going to serve as a plot device. So while both your points are valid in themselves, they don't necessarily and fully exonerate the film from the points of the other posters.

Also, I think you're "missing," or at least not addressing, the many deep flaws of this film, ones not addressed by your (valid, I grant) points above. The "allegories" as presented in the film are hamfisted and overly contrived, the acting is amateurish, the plot is muddled, the camara work is jarring (and not in a good way, say, like Goddard's work). Addressing social issues, even important and relevant ones, does not mean the film doesn't have to bother succeeding at drama, at characterization, at film craft. What really bothers me about all the praise that surrounds this film is there is no little acknowledgement as to the poor film craft throughout. And being vehement and histrionic, as the handling of issues in this film clearly is, doesn't mean searing. At best, the social issues as presented in the film are dated and overly forced, all served up in a piece of flat out terrible filmmaking. Enough with the apologias and excuses for what is, in the end, a silly and embarrassing film.

[–] vinidici 13 years ago

I saw the movie the first time in the early 1970's as a youngster, and, more recently, again ten years ago. If it's dated in a lot of ways, I don't think it had yet been considered as such during the time I first saw it; and the social issues it addresses aren't so dated, at least. I still think it's pretty good for a B movie.

Upon my seoond viewing, I gathered that the Breck character's sanity progressively eroded with each traumatic experience related to him by the inmates. Each of them, during their moment of lucidity, related to him the horrors they had suffered and further exposed not just the identity of the killer he was hunting for, but that underbelly of the grossly flawed society of the day in which this story is set and filmed (and those issues haven't improved in our sick society all that much even today!) Also, as the other poster suggested, it may have been too subtle of a clue, but the Breck character had already had some obssessive tendencies and his girlfriend intuitively knew that he was plunging into something that could push him beyond the brink. I agree that this film is no masterpiece, but still a pretty good one and, for the motion picture industry, another baby step taken away from the blandness and fluff that had often characterized typical Hollywood fare.

On another note, someone complained to the effect that there was no humor in the story. Perhaps there wasn't ENOUGH of it, but there was SOME; the scene I'm thinking of is when the fat, bearded inmate awakens Breck in the middle of the night with his tone deaf opera rendition. The groggy Breck character was too amused to feel much irratation toward the man who was interrupting his slumber!

Whatever you do, DO NOT read this sig--ACKKK!!! TOO LATE!!!

[–] IEatWords 12 years ago

Agreed. Just because the concept behind the film is ambiguous, that shouldn't give it a free pass because it's a terrible film otherwise. I like some Fuller films but others, like this one, suffer from being too literal in design without much attention to craft. You can tell he's a former newspaper guy. In some films it works, in others it simply doesn't. He's sort of like Cronenberg, just using film for some sort of self expression when half the time their attempts seem better suited for a book as opposed to being put to film.

[–] BayouMoses 9 years ago

I think most here are missing the point entirely. Fuller didn't set out to make a realistic portrayal of the pathology of mental illness with Shock Corridor, nor did he set out to make a whodunit-style mystery. He was painting an allegory of everything wrong with America in 1963, specifically xenophobia, racism and nuclear anxiety, as represented by each of the three witnesses to Sloan's murder.

Plus, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest winds up looking pretty conventional compared to this movie.

[–] flanger216 13 years ago

Samuel Fuller probably would've barfed at the mere thought of calling his work 'classical.' And I think nothing prevents people from enjoying and connecting with art --- particularly past art --- than the concept of being 'classic.' This is a wild-eyed, maniacally psychopathic work that is, fittingly, about psychopathy. It's supposed to be intense, deranged and gallows-funny. It's not supposed to be superior, over-produced, self-consciously pretty, stuffy, instructive of or hinged upon psychiatric legitimacy, or anything else typified by the 'classic' label. You don't go into a whore-house for a dialectical discussion of Marxist superstructure theory; you don't go into a Fuller film for nice, staid, par-excellent dramaturgy.

Granted, I have no idea why Criterion and other auteur-hounds have such knobbers in their pants for Fuller, yet couldn't care less about Ken Russell, Sogo Ishii, or other great maniacs of cinema --- but there you go, it's just arbitrary movements formed by people who fashion themselves as arbiters of taste, yet of course no one can truly fill that role. And anyway, auteur theory is just a halfway useful critical tool, made reductive and misconstrued through years of overuse.

With Fuller, it's all about viscera. You either dig his moods, or you don't, and the great thing about him is how he makes absolutely no concessions to those who expect something, I dunno, normal. Comparing it to "Repulsion" is just bizarre, because that movie is internal/imploding/cerebral rather than external/exploding/visceral, not to mention how Polanski is just about on the polar opposite of Fuller in terms of style. It's like saying "High Noon" is a 'better' movie than "El Topo," because the characters are more defined --- you're really just imposing your own intent onto the movie.

[–] TheSario 11 years ago

Granted, I have no idea why Criterion and other auteur-hounds have such knobbers in their pants for Fuller, yet couldn't care less about Ken Russell, Sogo Ishii, or other great maniacs of cinema --- but there you go

The French New Wave could probably be blamed for that. Going into this with the wrong expectations based on that is likely part of the problem a lot of people have with this.

I found this movie to be camp as all hell, which makes it entertaining enough, but has enough thematic ambition and style to stand out. It is what it is. I'd definitely be up for seeing a RiffTrax done on this though.

[–] newg_inafets 12 years ago

I found this is an excellent movie! i just watched it, it's way beyond my expectation. 7.6 rating seems underrated for me. Classic? What's classic? it's just a term, great movie is a great movie. Period.

[–] Buff70 11 years ago

Artist -- I know exactly what you mean. This movie reminded me of a caricature of some sort, a parody. The acting/performance of the main female character was so poor, I was wondering if it was intentional ... same observation applies to the male character.

Not sure if you are familiar with comedienne Sandra Bernhard .. in the past she hosted the USA Network's Reel Wild Cinema for a while.
Comic, low-budget films from the 1930s through the '70s in an offbeat series that included newsreels and instructional films. Some of the movies shown included `She-Freak,' `Souls in Pawn,' `Girl Gang,' `The Girl and the Geek' and `Naked Witch.'

I would think 'Shock Corridor' is a movie that would fit right into that category!

[–] ColaAndMealPleaseNoBread 9 years ago

I honestly think this film is comparable to Glen or Glenda - that film also touched on bold (arguably, bolder) themes, in a highly camp, at times unintentionally funny style, but with some highly stylized touches (Glen or Glenda being highly influenced by surrealism). Both are about as competently made too, it's just Glen or Glenda is... uh, weird ("Pull ze string! Pull ze string!"). And despite this film Sam Fuller is a more competent director taking his overall filmography into consideration, whereas Ed Wood... wasn't. Still at least with Glen or Glenda I think that film commands as much if not more respect than this movie which left me baffled too as to its high reputation. As said it's an ultra-camp C-grade noir that touches on political themes in a bold yet extremely ham-handed way.