Crucible of Horror
Crucible
of Horror (British 1969, dir: Viktors Ritelis; cast: Michael
Gough, Yvonne Mitchell, Sharon Gurney, Simon Gough, aka The Corpse, The
Velvet House).
Actually, Crucible of Horror is not so bad. It's tense and enjoyable. It just makes no sense. Michael Gough is the stern father, lording over his household. When his 16-year-old daughter (a lovely Sharon Gurney, looking older because, no doubt, she is) steals, Gough horsewhips her with a switch, leaving deep red scars. She's a bad girl, and as Gough is not one to spare the rod, this is a repeated ritual. During the beatings, Gough's wife (Yvonne Mitchell) cowers in another room. His son (Simon Gough) obliviously boogies to his music (using headsets to drown out sis's screams). When Gough leaves Sharon's room, Simon eagerly pops out to ask: "What's sis done now?" "Stealing," Gough bluntly replies. Simon enjoys sis's repeated comeupance. He also avoids the switch. He's a strapping young lad following Gough into the insurance business, the pride of his dad's loins. After
one particularly nasty beating, mother and daughter resolve to kill Gough.
And they do, apparently. Or maybe not. Gough's corpse keeps
popping up in odd places. But not till late in the film, and even
then we're not certain if it's under his
You'll have to watch and decide for yourself if any of this makes sense. Now that I've clued you in, maybe it'll make some sense as you watch. Crucible of Horror is nicely atmospheric in portraying the English suburbs and countryside, although for most of the film one gets the impression that one is watching a suspense thriller rather than a horror film. Gough provides the standout performance as the father. Especially chilling (and funny, in an extremely dark sense) is his serenity before and after his savage beatings. Discussing mundane trivia as though nothing of any import has occurred. Calm demeanor, placid voice, unruffled manner. His daughter absent from breakfast, Gough nonchalantly asks, "Where's Jane?" An innocent question that carries dread for the mother and viewer, as we know what may follow. Or not. Gough is ever calm, and not every transgression is met with ferocity. No telling which innocent question precedes his fury. Although
confusing and slow-moving, Crucible
of Horror has its defenders. In Fragments
of Fear: An Illustrated History of British Horror Films, Andy
Boot calls the film "interesting," adding: "While the script was nothing
to write home about, the
Fair enough. But one can also sympathize with John Stanley, who in his Creature Features movie guide describes the film as: "A viewing crucible." At least Stanley knew what the film was about: "a spirit wreaking revenge." Or a corpse. Or something like that. I only wonder who clued in Stanley. One way to handle obscurity is to look for a theme. Themes elevate the obscure into the profound. The Overlook Encyclopedia says the film: "could be seen as an allegory indicating that killing a patriarch doesn't eliminate patriarchy." Okay. That'll work. Even so, I still think Elvira was nearest the truth. The poor vampress was befuddled throughout the film because it was a befuddling film. And to her credit, she had the courage of her convictions, looking beyond themes, and simply pronouncing that the emperor had no clothes. Crucible
of Horror is not a bad film, but better if you read about it
before
seeing it. That way, you'll know what the film's about as you view
it. Also, not to be confused with another British horror film, Crucible
Of Terror (1971).
Review copyright by Thomas
M. Sipos
Thomas M. Sipos's novels include Vampire Nationand Manhattan Sharks. His essays on horror film aesthetics appear in Halloween Candy. |
