Nikolas
Schreck writes that centuries of artists have had sympathy for the Devil
because Satan symbolizes creative freedom and sexual liberation. Thus, while much of his book unavoidably covers horror films,
The Satanic Screen, as its title implies, examines all cinematic
depictions of Satan.
Schreck sets the
tone in his opening sentence: "According to tradition, the
Devil has always been a celebrated patron of the arts. Quite
apart from the vague and somewhat contradictory references to
his personage found in the Bible, Satan has maintained a long
and distinguished presence in Western culture. Indeed, it is as
a constantly shape-shifting entity of the creative imagination
that Lucifer has been most enlivened in mankind's consciousness."
Schreck begins
with the 1600s, writing: "The history of the Satanic cinema
truly begins with the magic lantern spectacles of the seventeenth
century, which delighted and frightened pre-cinematic audiences
with elaborate illusions of light and shadows."
His first
chapter examines this "pre-cinematic cinema," then follows a
chapter on silent films, then one chapter for each decade from the
1930s through the 1990s.
Schreck is
knowledgeable if opinionated, not necessarily a bad quality in a
critic (though some readers will be annoyed when he refers to
"Judeao-Christian mythology" as a given). Yet his deeply-held
perspective (sympathy for the devil as symbol of liberation) results
in some thought-provoking critical analysis.
Of 1950s indie
filmmaker Kenneth Anger, Schreck writes: "Anger's vision
of the Devil has nothing to do with the Christian figure of
damnation. For him, Lucifer is the principle of light and liberation,
and the mystical vision projected in his films is not so much
traditionally Satanic as it is Luciferian."
However, this
critical strength is also a weakness, as it causes Schreck
to seek meaning where there is none. In discussing the 1959
Mexican children's film, Santa Claus (wherein Santa combats Satan),
Schreck writes: "Of course, the alert reader has already noticed
the cryptic occult message hidden in this seemingly harmless
family picture ... Santa as an anagram of Satan."
Schreck doesn't
elaborate on why this anagram is relevant to anything
because, I think, it's not.
Still, Schreck
is even-handed in his theological criticism. Aleister Crowley
(inspiration for many horror novels and films, such as
Dennis Wheatley's The Devil Rides Out) is presented warts and all.
Likewise, Wiccans will bristle when they read Schreck's chapter on the
1960s, wherein he writes:
"To the
contemporary reader, whose idea of a witch may be influenced by
the sweetness-and-light Wiccans who have appropriated the
word, the dark aesthetic of the '60s witch must be emphasized.
Seeing themselves as sisters of Satan, the majority of that era's
witches were a far cry from the current Wiccan movement. Just
as today's Wiccans are constantly pointing out indignantly that
they are not Satanists, the witchcraft movement of the sixties
reveled in its romantically diabolical associations."
(It is
noteworthy that while Wiccans insist that Satan is a Christian deity,
the Church of Satan's website claims that Satan is just another
name for the universal pre-Judeao-Christian concept of a dark
deity -- a claim that mirrors the Wiccan concept of a universal
pre-Judeao-Christian mother goddess.)
But to his
credit (and in contrast to his Santa Claus analysis), Schreck
rarely lets his opinions interfere with his historical
objectivity. Most of his book is necessarily devoted to horror films,
and Schreck proves well-informed, having done much primary
research. He not only covers film aesthetics -- and the films'
production, distribution, and critical histories -- he examines the
films in their broader occult context, relating events in the
world of Satanism as these films were being made and seen.
Schreck's
research into Rosemary's Baby's production history -- and his
critical analysis of Roman Polanski's aesthetic intent -- is especially
impressive. Schreck investigates and disputes Satanist Anton
Szandor LaVey's widely circulated claim of having played the part
of the devil. (Satan was played by Clay Tanner).
However,
though Schreck provides an informed overview of LaVey's career,
I may have found a hole in Schreck's research.
Schreck writes:
"In 1969, Anton LaVey was commissioned by paperback
publisher Avon to put together a book designed to capture the growing
occult market Rosemary's Baby had helped to spawn. Despite
its paucity of content, and several allegedly plagiarized
passages, the book established LaVey as the brand name of pop
Satanism."
Nevertheless, a
successful author of many years tells me that
The Satanic
Bible was ghost-written by Mike Resnick. Another
well-established editor confirmed to me many years ago "that was the rumor."
(I've not queried Mike Resnick about the matter).
The Satanic
Screen is impressive in its research and coverage. Printed on
heavy gloss paper. Nearly 150 black & white illustrations.
Same high-quality printing as in past Creation Books.
Nikolas Schreck
has edited another Creation Book,
Flowers From Hell: A Satanic Reader.
Review copyright by Thomas M. Sipos
|