Horror Icarus File No. 37: Peeping Tom (dir. by Michael Powell)


“Do you know what the most frightening thing in the world is? It’s fear.” — Mark Lewis

Every horror movie is, at some level, about watching — but Peeping Tom, Michael Powell’s 1960 psychological horror-thriller, is the one that admits it out loud. It’s a movie about a man who can’t stop watching, made by a man who spent his life on the other side of the lens, released into a world that wasn’t ready to be told what cinema actually asks of us. The result is a fascinating double ruin: a killer destroyed by the camera in childhood, and a director destroyed by a camera of his own.

The killer first. Karlheinz Böhm plays Mark Lewis, a soft-spoken young man who works at a London film studio as a focus puller — the crew member whose job is literally keeping other people’s images sharp — and who, on the side, shoots glamour photos for a seedy newsagent. Upstairs in his late father’s house sits a darkroom and a private screening room where Mark watches his own footage over and over. Because Mark, you see, is a killer: he murders women with a spiked blade hidden in his camera tripod while filming their faces as they realize what’s happening, so he can capture the exact moment of terror.

It’s genuinely unsettling stuff, and Powell has the nerve to make us complicit. The camera on Mark’s shoulder becomes our point of view, and the movie repeatedly forces us into the killer’s eyepiece. There’s no way to watch Peeping Tom passively — you’re implicated from the first frame, and the film knows it.

What elevates all this from grisly gimmick to genuine tragedy is the empathy the film generates for Mark. He’s no boogeyman; he’s shy, awkward, almost childlike, and the movie patiently unpacks where he came from. His father, a famous psychologist, used little Mark as a lab rat for his experiments on fear, terrifying the boy on camera around the clock, waking him in the night with a lizard thrown onto his bed. Mark was never allowed to just be a kid, and the film frames his murders as a ghastly continuation of the experiment — a search for the perfect recording of fear.

There’s a devastating subplot involving his blind neighbor Helen, played by Anna Massey, who befriends him and eventually screens his childhood footage in a sequence that’s heartbreaking precisely because Mark narrates it with such flat, damaged calm. He can’t even recognize that what happened to him was monstrous. That confusion is the horror — and notice that in a film about seeing, the only person who truly trusts Mark is a woman who can’t see at all.

And then there’s the director, because Peeping Tom is as much a confession as it is a thriller. Powell, the man behind The Red Shoes and Black Narcissus, filled this movie with himself: the studio where Mark works, the film-within-a-film shooting there, the director character who treats his actresses with casual cruelty, and above all the camera itself, presented as an instrument that’s inherently predatory. The famous moment when Mark photographs a woman’s face and we see it refracted through his lens, warped and distorted, is basically a thesis statement about the medium — a great artist asking whether the act of looking is itself an act of violence.

Audiences in 1960 were not ready for a beloved director suggesting that cinema might be a voyeur’s machine, and the damage was immediate and career-ending: the film was pulled from circulation within days, financiers closed their doors, and Powell — who co-wrote the screenplay with Leo Marks — found himself effectively unemployable in British cinema, scraping together scattered, underfunded work abroad for the next thirty years. He described the aftermath as being sent “into the wilderness.”

The irony is that Psycho came out the exact same year, and Hitchcock walked away with his legend enhanced while Powell walked away in ruins. Both are about isolated killers obsessed with spectatorship and the audience’s guilty hunger to see — but where Psycho cloaks its perversity in grease and melodrama, Peeping Tom is cool, clinical, and honest.

Honest, and gorgeous, too. Powell, the great colorist of British cinema, shoots it all in saturated Eastmancolor that turns the tawdry rooms into a garish fever dream. Carl Boehm is gentle and creepy at once, impossible to imagine anyone else in the role, and Anna Massey grounds the film as its emotional conscience. Moira Shearer, the ballerina from The Red Shoes, shows up in a wonderful extended cameo as a stand-in who walks into Mark’s apartment and walks out of it dead — a scene that’s somehow both ghastly and elegant.

The legacy story is where the rehabilitation gets really satisfying, because once the film resurfaced, its DNA turned out to be everywhere in modern horror. Start with the most obvious inheritance: the killer’s point of view. Every horror movie that puts the audience behind the murderer’s eyes — the opening POV stalk of Halloween, the drifting camera-eye of Black Christmas, the whole slasher tradition of the subjective tracking shot — is following a trail Powell blazed in 1960: the camera becomes the killer, and watching becomes a kind of participation.

Then there’s the found-footage vein. Mark Lewis is cinema’s original killer-cameraman, and you can draw a straight line from his home screening room to Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer and all the way to The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity, where the very act of recording is what summons and sustains the horror. The killer’s home movies prefigure the deadly broadcast of Videodrome, the cursed tape of Ringu and The Ring, the home-video nightmares of Sinister, and the killer-documenting-his-crimes conceit of Man Bites Dog.

Brian De Palma deserves his own sentence in this ledger: from Sisters to Dressed to Kill and Body Double — a film about watching a murder through a lens — he kept returning to Powell’s question of whether the director’s gaze is pleasure or predation, and got away with it simply by making his movies a decade or two later.

The film’s psychological approach proved just as contagious. Mark Lewis is a killer with an actual explanation, a case history we’re invited to understand, and every horror film that humanizes its monster rather than simply unleashing it — The Silence of the Lambs, Manhunter‘s tormented Francis Dolarhyde, the grief-stricken ghosts of The Babadook and Hereditary — owes something to Powell’s refusal to treat his killer as a cheap bogeyman. Even the art-house provocations that implicate the viewer, from Funny Games to Caché, are playing on the same board Powell set up: what the person behind the camera — and the person in the seat — really wants to see.

The most bittersweet chapter of the legacy, though, is the giallo. Almost as soon as Powell was chased out of British cinema for these techniques, Italian filmmakers picked them up and ran wild with them, to international acclaim. The giallo thrillers of the 1960s and 70s — Blood and Black Lace, The Bird with the Crystal Plumage, Deep Red, the gorgeous-murder tradition that Mario Bava and Dario Argento built into an entire genre — are practically assembled from Peeping Tom‘s toolkit: the masked killer whose crimes we witness through his own eyes, the traumatic origin story, the fetishistic attention to the mechanics of murder, the color splashed over terrible violence. Argento’s black-gloved murderer is Mark Lewis with an Italian accent and a better tailor — Powell had made one of the first great giallo films without knowing the genre existed, and the Italians got celebrated for it while he got blacklisted. Proof that Peeping Tom wasn’t too much for audiences, it was simply too early, and too British, for its own good.

Which brings us back to the confession. Mark Lewis ends his film the only way a man made of recordings ever could: watching his own death footage, whispering about the fear his father’s experiments could never quite capture. Powell, ruined by a movie about a ruined man, spent thirty years in the wilderness before the world caught up to what he’d been saying all along. Both stories end the same way — the film outlives the man, the images outlive the shame. Peeping Tom is tense, strange, unexpectedly sad, and still one of the most honest movies ever made about why we sit in the dark. Watch it, and then try to pretend you’re innocent.

Previous Icarus Files:

  1. Cloud Atlas
  2. Maximum Overdrive
  3. Glass
  4. Captive State
  5. Mother!
  6. The Man Who Killed Don Quixote
  7. Last Days
  8. Plan 9 From Outer Space
  9. The Last Movie
  10. 88
  11. The Bonfire of the Vanities
  12. Birdemic
  13. Birdemic 2: The Resurrection
  14. Last Exit To Brooklyn
  15. Glen or Glenda
  16. The Assassination of Trotsky
  17. Che!
  18. Brewster McCloud
  19. American Traitor: The Trial of Axis Sally
  20. Tough Guys Don’t Dance
  21. Reach Me
  22. Revolution
  23. The Last Tycoon
  24. Express to Terror
  25. 1941
  26. The Teheran Incident
  27. Con Man
  28. Looker
  29. 1776
  30. Here
  31. The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr.
  32. The Cable Guy
  33. A Chorus Line
  34. Carrie
  35. Millenium
  36. Mindhunter

Lisa Reviews An Oscar Winner: Hamlet (dir by Laurence Olivier)


(With the Oscars scheduled to be awarded on March 4th, I have decided to review at least one Oscar-nominated film a day.  These films could be nominees or they could be winners.  They could be from this year’s Oscars or they could be a previous year’s nominee!  We’ll see how things play out.  Today, I take a look at the 1948 best picture winner, Hamlet!)

Hamlet is a film of firsts.

It was the first British production to win the Oscar for Best Picture.  In winning, it beat out three American films (Johnny Belinda, The Snake Pit, and The Treasure of the Sierra Madre) and one other British film (The Red Shoes).

It was also the first adaptation of Shakespeare to win Best Picture.  Of course, it wasn’t the first Shakespeare adaptation to be nominated.  That honor would go to 1935’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream.  Adaptations of Romeo and Juliet would be nominated in 1936, 1961, and 1968.  Henry V (which, like Hamlet, was directed by and starred Laurence Olivier) was a 1946 nominee.  Then there was 1953’s Julius Caesar.  The Dresser featured scenes from Shakespeare.  Shakespeare in Love imagined the circumstances behind the writing of Romeo and Juliet.  However, Hamlet was the first to win.

It also remains the only traditional Shakespearean adaptation to win.  West Side Story updated Romeo and Juliet while Shakespeare in Love … well, let’s just not get into it.

It was the first Best Picture winner to be directed by the man starring in the movie.  Laurence Olivier was nominated for both Best Director and Best Actor.  He lost the directing Oscar to John Huston but he won for his performance as Hamlet.  In winning, he became the first actor to direct himself to an Oscar.

Finally, Hamlet was the first of 24 films to feature both Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee!  In fact, this was Lee’s film debut.  Now, before anyone gets too excited, I should point out that Cushing and Lee don’t actually interact.  In fact, Lee doesn’t even speak in the film.  He appears in the background as a Spear Carrier and it’s pretty much impossible to spot him.  He has no dialogue and wasn’t even listed in the final credits.  From what I’ve read, I don’t think Lee and Cushing even knew each other at the time and, when they later met, they were surprised to learn that they had both appeared in the film.  For his part, Cushing plays Osiric, the courtier who everyone remembers because he had such a cool name.

It’s always fun to play “what if.”  Rosencrantz and Guildenstern do not appear in Olivier’s adaptation of the play.  To modern audiences, that might seem strange but, really, that’s just because we’re all familiar with the two characters from Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.  When Olivier filmed Hamlet, he excised portions of the play in the interest of time.  (Hamlet uncut runs over four hours.  Olivier’s version clocks in at nearly three.)  Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, Fortinbras, and the second gravedigger are all dropped from Olivier’s version and, to be honest, none of them are particularly missed.

And yet … as I watched Hamlet, I found myself wondering what would have happened if Olivier had kept Rosencrantz and Guildenstern around and had cast Cushing and Lee in those roles.  It probably wouldn’t have happened, of course.  Cushing maybe but Lee was a total unknown at the time.  Still, how amazing would that have been?

As for the actual film, Olivier’s Hamlet turned out to be far more cinematic than I was anticipating.  Olivier’s camera snakes through the darkened hallways of Elsinore Castle while Olivier’s Hamlet veers between self-righteous fury and apparent madness as he seeks revenge on his Uncle Claudius (Basil Sydney).  As Hamlet grows more obsessed with death and vengeance, the castle seems to grow darker and the hallways even more maze-like, as if the castle’s changing shape to conform with the turmoil in Hamlet’s mind.  Among the cast, Jean Simmons is poignantly fragile as Ophelia while Eileen Herlie is the perfect Gertrude, despite being 12 years younger than the actor playing her son.  Olivier gives a wonderfully physical performance as Hamlet, killing Polonious with a demented gleam in his eye and literally leaping towards his uncle at the end of the film.

If you’re one of those people who thinks that Shakespeare is boring … well, Olivier’s Hamlet probably won’t change your mind.  One thing I’ve noticed about the “Shakespeare is boring” crowd is that nothing can change their minds.  But, for the rest of us, Olivier’s Hamlet is an exciting adaptation of Shakespeare’s more difficult play.

You won’t miss Rosencrantz and Guildenstern at all.  And seriously, Fortinbras who?

Cleaning Out The DVR, Again #8: Anne of the Thousand Days (dir by Charles Jarrott)


Anne

After I finished writing my review of Rolling Thunder, I continued the process of cleaning out my DVR by watching the 1969 film, Anne of the Thousand Days.  How does a film like Anne of the Thousand Days compare to a film like Rolling Thunder?

They might as well have been conceived, written, directed, and released on different planets.

I recorded Anne of The Thousand Days off of TCM on March 26th.  The main reason that I set the DVR to record it was because Anne was a best picture nominee.  It may seem strange to think that this rather conventional film was nominated the same year as Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Z, and Midnight Cowboy.  It gets even stranger when you consider what wasn’t nominated that year: Medium Cool, If…, Last Summer, They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?, Alice’s Restaurant, The Wild Bunch, Once Upon A Time In The West, and a long list of other films.  In fact, if I wanted to, I could probably spend this entire review listing all of the 1969 films that feel like a more appropriate best picture nominee than Anne of the Thousand Days.

And yet, Anne was nominated for best picture.  In fact, it received a total of 10 Oscar nominations, the most of any film that year.  Tellingly most of the nominations were in the technical categories and the only Oscar that it won was for its costumes.  Genevieve Bujold received a nomination for playing the title character and Richard Burton became the third actor to receive a nomination for playing King Henry VIII.

As for the film, Anne of the Thousand Days tells the oft-told story of King Henry VIII and his marriage to Anne Boleyn.  Told in flashback as both Henry and Anne wait for her to be executed on charges of adultery, the film shows us how middle-aged Henry VIII first met and fell in love with 18 year-old Anne Boleyn.  Standing in the way of Henry’s pursuit of Anne was the fact that 1) Anne intensely disliked him, 2) Anne was already engaged, 3) Anne’s sister was already Henry’s mistress, and 4) Henry was already married to Catherine of Aragon (Irene Papas).

Fortunately, Henry happens to be king and being king comes with its perks.

For instance, as king, he can order Anne and her fiancée to break up.  As king, he can casually dismiss his former mistress.  And, as king, Henry has the power that Anne finds to be the ultimate aphrodisiac.  At first, Anne merely loves the fact that Henry is obsessed with her.  But slowly, she comes to love Henry as a man as well…

The only problem is that Henry is still married and Catherine is still popular with the people.  Even after Henry divorces her and marries Anne, the common people refuse to accept Anne as their queen.  When Sir Thomas More (William Squire) refuses to recognize Anne as queen, Anne demands that More be executed.  When Henry initially shows reluctance, Anne announces that she will not sleep with him until More is dead.

Needless to say, Thomas More is quickly executed.

However, Henry’s attention has already moved on to Jane Seymour (Lesley Paterson) and, desperate to get Anne out of his life, he arranges for Cardinal Cromwell (John Colicos) to frame Anne on charges of adultery and incest.  With Anne facing a humiliating trial and the possibility of execution, Henry makes her an offer.  If she agrees to an annulment, he’ll free her.  However, their daughter — Elizabeth — will lose her claim to the throne…

It’s telling that Charles Jarrott did not receive an Oscar nomination for his work as Anne of the Thousand Day‘s director.  There are a lot of technically good things about Anne of the Thousand Days but, despite all of the melodrama and sex and historical detail to be found in Anne, it never comes to life as a movie.  The costumes are to die for, the sets are impressive, and the cast is full of talented British character actors but the whole movie just feels oddly flat.  Try as it may, it can never convince us that either Henry VIII or Anne Boleyn is worth all the trouble.

Anne of the Thousand Days was obviously a big production, which probably explains all the Oscar nominations.  But otherwise, it’s one of the more forgettable best picture nominees.