MovieChat Forums > The GorgonĀ (1964) Discussion > It was a mistake to . . . [spoiler]

It was a mistake to . . . [spoiler]

It was a mistake to show the title creature's face, for it wasn't nearly hideous enough to justify the onscreen revulsion, screaming, and gorgonizing (petrifaction).

Obviously, nothing in real life can look horrible enough to turn an observer to stone [insert joke here].

To the contention that the audience might feel cheated if, say, only a shadow of the creature's face or the back of its head were shown, recall that effective films like The Exorcist and The Haunting (1963)--to say nothing of literary tales--showed us very little, if anything, of their central horror. To risk a commonplace, the imagination conjures worse terrors than the eye alone.



The Exorcist showed every gory detail of the possessed girl. So knock that one out of your example.

"Cum Grano Salis"


"The Exorcist" did show pretty much everything--I wonder if the first poster was actually thinking of "Rosemary's Baby."

"Island of the Burning Damned," another Hammer film, had a similar problem to "The Gorgon." The aliens were quite effective when they were heard but not seen, making a high pitched whirring noise when they burned their victims to death. The effect was a bit anti-climatic when we finally saw the monsters (lit-up blobs). Low budget films are usually more effective when they hint at their horrors rather than showing them directly--and even big budget films benefit when they leave some things to the imagination.

In heaven everything is fine.