I can't believe no one has commented on this movie at all. Considering, as the review says, people have lots of questions about it. I actually have a lot of things I don't get about it...mainly that whole thing with the rocks in the desert. But it was still a good movie.
shareI agree, it's pretty good. Reminded me (visually) of a Nicholas Roeg movie.
One thing that wasn't explained very well WAS the part about the rock. So Alan Bates' soul was literally smashed when John Hurt breaks the rock??? If that's right, this relates to the thing about ancient aboriginals and the ability to invest magic in/control/kill people with objects eg: Susannah York's buckle. But how did Hurt find the rock?
Also, I didn't get the thing about the cobbler - someone please explain how he was so affected. Did he hear the shout?
The cobbler had John Hurt's wife's shoe, to replace the missing buckle, which Crossley had, who shouted, which was heard by Mr Hurt, who awoke momentarily in the mindset of the cobbler. So I can only assume that there was a big jiggle about with possesions and cross-possesions and the Cobbler experienced Hurt's sensations as it were. How confusing is that?
I read a critique of this film which described it as "... posing many questions but refusing to answer any of them". A perfect summary if you ask me.
This film's power lies in it's refusal to solve the riddle. A truly haunting, nightmarish film.
I agree. This film is an old strange favourite.
One gets tired of films with trite predictable plots and x=y. It is so refreshing to see a film where things are not explained, where your imagination is engaged, where there are no easy answers, but in which the story is told thoroughly convincingly and puts you inside another's mind, albeit in this case that of a mental patient. The otherness of others is the basis of art, and ultimately all viewpoints are equally valid to their holders. Life after all has no answers - no one can even agree on what the question is. So why should stories? This film aims to convey otherness and strangeness, and to challenge the ordinary. It succeeds wonderfully through its own insane logic. Conventional analysis is pointless.
Bates' presence is overwhelming. I saw him on stage many years ago, and he filled the theatre - he had an incredible power to focus emotion and convey it thoroughly with the slightest gesture, minimalist almost, and a resounding voice that was iron in velvet.
Haunting, subtle, stylish, masterful.
I remember reading the short horror story of 'the shout' when i was a teenager, it is a very strange and disturbing tale and possibly is relating to gypsy lore although im not 100% sure about this..
its a shame there are not more films made like this as i believe psychological horror to be a much more powerful genre than the majority of horror films we see today.
I first read the story in college, and it has haunted me ever since. I had always wondered why it hadn't been adapted as a movie, and then I discovered that it had...12 years before I ever read the story!
The film is a very close adaptation. In both versions, the magic was aboriginal in nature, not Gypsy. The bit with the rocks representing souls is a little clearer in the story, but it's a hard thing to adapt visually. I think they did a good job with it.
The only other differences between the story and the film were the final scene (the film is too literal and ultimately sedate, whereas the story is confusing and frightening) which should have been envisioned much larger, maybe with special effects, and the elimination from the movie of a subplot about the Fieldings' open marriage (in the story, Crossley's seduction of Rachel is less shocking but more insidious because the couple are nominally okay with mutual extramarital activity, but Crossley's manipulation reveals that Anthony really has been swallowing a lot of jealousy that he's never had to confront before).
This is a wierd and extremely original film and i urge any one who has not seen it to get hold of a copy, watch and enjoy - not to be missed. One of my favourite films of all time.
shareLOL...what a great opening statement...!!!
And, yes...I concur with your closing, as well.
Just saw this last night. I remember Crossley telling some story about removing kidneys, etc. (though I don't remember whether it referred to himself - he did show that scar around his waist). Maybe it was what's called "sympathetic magic". Remember when he scraped that thigh bone to make the Hurt character get hit in the thigh while playing cricket? Anyway, I think 2 of the stones represented his kidneys, and that last stone, his heart. Ergo, breaking the heart rock killed him. I think. Or not.
share[deleted]