William Castle Double Feature: Homicidal and Mr. Sardonicus (1961)
By Jeremy Breneman and Eric Grigs | October 20, 2021
NEGLECTED FILM REDEMPTION
a series of conversations about forgotten and under-the-radar cinema.
Getting into the spirit of the spooky season, we picked a 1961 double feature of Homicidal and Mr. Sardonicus to discuss the fun and frights of the master of gimmicks, William Castle. First up is Homicidal, where a mysterious young woman commits several murders in a small town to obtain a family inheritance. Next is the story of Mr. Sardonicus, depicting a man driven to madness and cruelty after his face becomes frozen in a horrifying grin from the fright he experiences when robbing his own father's grave.
Eric: Our conversation about these films will be tricky without divulging some of the plot points, but I think our chat will be richer if we assume readers have watched them already. Shall we use this opportunity to warn readers that past this point they may encounter reveals, twists, and the like? Our very own “Fright Break!”
Jeremy: I think we can cover them nicely without giving it all away. Side note: I have to say the “Fright Break” gimmick at the end of Homicidal plays better in a theatre than home viewing. When I saw this a few years ago at an actual theatrical screening, the audience counted down with the clock! It was ridiculously fun! It also reminded me how much Columbia Pictures and William Castle wanted to keep movies a communal experience.
Eric: And here we are in the midst of a pandemic exactly 60 years after the release of these two movies, wondering if the theater experience will ever come back like it once was. So your point about the value of getting butts in the seats of an auditorium instead of watching entertainment alone in our homes is more relevant now than ever before. What do we lose by not experiencing movies together? I wonder what Castle would say?
Anyway, I’ve caught Castle fever! I’m working my way through the PowerHouse Indicator William Castle at Columbia Blu-ray sets, both volumes, and have downloaded onto my Kindle his autobiography, Step Right Up! I’m Going to Scare the Pants Off America!
Besides House on Haunted Hill (which I saw long ago and loved), so far I’ve enjoyed Homicidal the most out of our picks (and among the many Castle films which I’ve been bingeing this month). But does it feel like a Psycho knockoff to you—or is it its own thing?
Jeremy: The first time I saw Homicidal was over 20 years ago, I thought its Psycho elements were truly difficult to ignore! It’s especially evident in Castle’s paranoia driving scene and of course the big discovery at the end…even the camera work seems to steal from the climax of Psycho. I mean, who was William Castle if not trying to rip off Hitchcock?
Eric: I love the Castle / Hitchcock competition, if one actually existed at all or was just for fun.
Jeremy: Also, didn’t you think it was more than a little obvious that Castle cast actors who actually look more than a little like Janet Leigh, John Gavin, and Vera Miles? Granted Castle’s cast here are all B-movie icons.
Eric: There’s definitely some mirroring happening. I think Hitch got all the highbrow accolades (let’s face it, probably deservedly) and Castle got the 13 year old fanboys or young couples who just want a spooky date-night movie. His films are certainly all about the fun of the fright. It’s interesting to note that Castle was just as dedicated to his craft of filmmaking as Hitchcock was—he just probably had less time and money for each feature he was required to crank out while working inside the studio system. And his respect was always undermined by the effort he put into all his loopy gimmicks that went alongside the films. In reading his autobiography, he speaks so fondly of his time working on live theater productions, so it’s a logical jump to see why he was so intent on provoking interactions with the audience beyond passively watching a film.
Jeremy: Castle’s gimmicks seemed to have either completely worked or kind of completely fizzled. It was a time when Hollywood was trying to still lure people away from their TV sets. Who wouldn’t want to try out special glasses to see ghosts, get shocked with electricity in their seats, or actually need a “fright break” which our first film offered?
What I find interesting is the more critically acclaimed Castle film came later in his career and didn’t rely on a gimmick, aside from a more psychologically sinister one. Rosemary’s Baby, anyone? I mean, what could be worse than giving birth to Satan’s child? Granted, he did not direct, but produced that one.
Eric: Out of our double feature, I felt Homicidal truly was closer to the pattern of a “modern” scary movie with its surprises and shocks. I did not expect the gruesome stabbing early on. And for me, it kept up a feeling of “anything could happen at any moment” suspense and dread throughout.
Jeremy: I think both films we selected deal with the “shock” of identity. Early into Homicidal you pretty much know the “surprise” within the first 20 minutes.
Eric: I must admit I did not catch the Emily/Warren link until the end! Am I just really good at suspending my disbelief or completely naive?
Jeremy: In any case, the shock here would be much more surprising through the lens of 1960s horror. It’s so earnest in its conviction. The problem with that film today is you can’t look at these identity issues with any sense of “ghastly horror” because its views are simply outdated now—unless you’ve been living under a rock or just an incredibly insensitive person. But do we really want to give anything away here?
Eric: I’m making no promises about spoilers!
There is an attempt at some nuance here. Namely, that the real horror is that Emily’s situation was forced on her by others, rather than by her own choice, and in the end the writers try to convey we are meant to feel some sympathy for her. But Homicidal also falls into the body of films that put gay and trans characters in the “abnormal or deviant” category that provides the reason why a character was a disturbed killer. As you note, thankfully, we’ve come far enough that with more visibility and representation onscreen, the occasional problematic depiction isn’t the only way LGBT people are ever shown. They can be more than just the villains of a story. We’ve talked a bit in our past film discussions about the morality codes of early cinema where people who differed from the norm (whether gender norms, promiscuity, and so on), if shown, were required to be punished—and there’s a bit of that going on here.
I recently watched the documentary Disclosure (streaming now on Netflix) that does a great job showing the journey of trans representation in cinema over the past century. And it’s really inspiring to watch a sea change happen in society’s views as people gain a better understanding of gender expression. Others may feel differently about it—but for me, often when I encounter stereotypical depictions of oppressed communities who have struggled to overcome negative perceptions, I try to remind myself of the positive that can also come out of it: here we are presented with evidence that we have actually done better since this. I feel there’s some empowerment in that approach because it can often feel like we haven’t made much social progress. Yet, looking back, we’ve actually come quite far in many ways! But it takes having these sorts of historical records, allowing them to exist in their time, to experience them again later, and to learn from them.
Jeremy: The passing references of “Denmark and whatever happened there” lead me to wonder, was there a generation of moviegoers to whom “Denmark” signaled some basic understanding of gender reassignment? I realize 60 years ago transgender issues were under the radar for most Midwestern moviegoers.
Eric: You’re right, it’s definitely speaking about the issue in the most coded way. I’m not sure I would have gotten the reference back then, but there is a lot of subtext sprinkled throughout, like Warren stealing the doll from his sister at a young age in the beginning scene. And both characters of Warren and Emily to me were always presented slightly “off” somehow. I was primarily fascinated with how wide Warren’s eyes were and his huge teeth—which seemed to necessitate all his lines being dubbed over. He gave me an off-kilter vibe throughout the movie, whereas Emily was more directly portrayed as menacing. A difficult task regardless for Joan Marshall (here credited as Jean Arless) navigating both ends of the gender spectrum!
Jeremy: Jean Arless was actually a pretty gifted actress, mostly relegated to TV but doing fine work here. Now I’m not entirely clear why she had the name change for this film (and she’s no longer with us to elaborate). I just feel like she captured the tortured soul here quite effectively and somehow manages to not go completely off the rails!
Eric: I can solve the Jean Arless mystery! The liner notes included with the PowerHouse Indicator limited edition Blu-ray mention that Castle wanted an unknown actress and also didn’t want her name to give the twist away so he created what he felt was a gender neutral name for her.
Jeremy: As we turn our attention to the cast, can we now talk a little about the dreamy Glenn Corbett? Was he not the handsomest, if not slightly dim-witted pharmacist around? I love the scenes of him fumbling around for clues to help solve this mystery. He was such a doll in films and TV of that era. He wasn’t the most gifted thespian, but who cares?
Eric: The pharmacist did catch my eye, and I expected him to play more of an active role in the resolution of the plot, but it didn’t happen that way. I’m not familiar with Corbett’s career, but wouldn’t mind seeing more of him. It’s funny, I feel the same way about Ronald Lewis in Mr. Sardonicus. No real awareness of him before this for me, but he did command the scenes he was in, and wouldn’t mind seeing more of his films.
Shall we delve into the second film in our double feature to see if you’re thinking what I’m thinking?
Jeremy: If Mr. Sardonicus predicted Botox cosmetics?
Eric: Ha! Close. But now that you mention it, I’m reaching the age where I could use a “fright lift!” But hopefully not as extreme as Sardonicus.
Jeremy: As we’ve been talking about issues of identity, here we see Mr. Sardonicus deals with identity in an unintentionally humorous way.
Eric: For sure, it felt more preoccupied with eliciting fright from the makeup reveal, to off and on success.
Jeremy: The explanations of how he maneuvered around just that physiology of his deformity is laughable…but so ridiculously fun.
Eric: The actor who played the “monster” here couldn’t bear the makeup for long stretches of time and so they made the mask—which I think is a better choice anyway. If we were to see the effects grin on screen all the time past the initial reveal scare and in a few other later scenes, I think the makeup would have to have been executed much better. But for me, it works in kind of the best B-movie way. What do you think?
Jeremy: The makeup takes a moment and a few giggles to get used to but it works! Again, I think we are asked to suspend our disbelief quite a bit but somehow it all came together.
And, Guy Rolfe! Now there was a guy with an interesting career! He worked with Marlene Dietrich in the 1930s and then finished his career out with an entry in The Puppetmaster series. You have to give this guy credit. He really lifts this film quite a bit with an air of legitimate regalness, which rather suits the gothic vibe here. Did you ever sense this might have been a Vincent Price abandoned vehicle?
Eric: That’s a good question. I could totally see Vincent playing the doctor. I’m not sure he’d be a great choice for Sardonicus though.
Jeremy: By the time Mr. Sardonicus came around, Price was churning out the Poe films at American International so I can imagine he wasn’t available.
Eric: I love the way the movie presents the story as straightforward, old black-and-white gothic tale. Not surprising, since it’s based on a gothic short story written by Ray Russell, who also wrote the movie’s screenplay. He also incorporated into the film elements—like the torture of the maid—from “Sanguinarius” and “Sagittarius,” two other short stories that form the basis of a trio of gothic stories to which “Sardonicus” also belongs.
The gimmick here was thumbs up or down—on little cards held up by the audience—to decide whether to show the bad guy mercy at the end. Of course, everyone in the theater chooses no mercy and lets him unnecessarily starve to death! Castle always said that another ending was filmed, but Rolfe denies any such shooting. So it was all marketing. The way film projection of movie reels worked back then before the digital age, you can see why. You’d have quite a logistics nightmare to actually count audience votes by hand and then take the time to manually switch reels.
Jeremy: The gimmick for this one was pretty clever, if not technologically impaired as you mentioned. The idea of an “alternate ending” was even used in films decades later, such as Clue. Perhaps Castle’s gimmick was an innovation at the time? So much of Castle’s work is derivative of other films not in his canon, but that’s really part of his charm.
He had a devoted group of actors in his a stable—some of them just desperate to work (Joan Crawford), but the guy deserves a lot of credit for doing something not so prevalent in films today…create curiosity! Sure we have franchises today which generate interest perpetually, but Castle managed to do it originally with every single individual film. From the curious title of The Tingler to the even more evocative Strait-Jacket and hell, even Rosemary’s Baby. Castle knew how to promote! Who wouldn’t be curious about a film called Homicidal?
Eric: If I’ve learned one thing about the life of Castle, above all else he loved being a showman! The promotional books that were sent to theater owners who were screening his films were full of elaborate and crazy ideas on how to bring the audience in. Like having someone in a nurse’s costume at the theater with a blood pressure cuff available to treat those who feel faint from fright. Or painting a yellow stripe to the lobby where the people who left the movie have to sit in a “cowards corner!” He really was ahead of his time in many ways in terms of marketing tricks and generating buzz.
Jeremy: And it really didn’t matter that the films themselves weren’t masterpieces.
Eric: I think I love them even more because they aren’t exactly masterpieces. But you used a great word earlier: earnest. And I don’t get that feeling from a lot in movies now.
Jeremy: At least Castle’s films have reached cult status which continue to maintain a following across the world. Perhaps even in Denmark?
Jeremy Breneman and Eric Grigs have been obsessing together over lesser-known film curiosities for the past year. Previous entries in this discussion series have included Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?, Foxfire, Lucky Lady, The Killing of Sister George, and Hilda Crane.