Diary of a Madman (1963)

 "Considering your endless studies of the criminal mind..."

You know when you start watching a film expecting a B movie, despite the literary basis of the script, and end up with a phiolosophical, literate and genuinely creepy little horror film? This is one of those nights. I don't care that the critics don't care for this film: they're wrong.

Obviously, Vincent Price, with that voice, is charismatic, extraordinary, and carries the film through sheer presence. But that's a given. Plus, the film and, indeed, the director, are fairly obscure. Perhaps what I'm truly blown away by is the original story (or two stories) by Guy de Maupassant- I've never read his short stories and, unlike other French authors, he isn't widely read in the English-speaking world. Yet I read that considerable liberties were taken with the source material beyond just conflating the two stories.

Nancy Kovack is excellent, of course, as a woman we are made to see as evil for her love of money and pleasure, but what options did a woman have in the France of 1886 beyond gold-digging? There's quite a feminist critique to be made of this fim, methinks.

Neverthleless, it's a thoughtful and deeply psychological approach to horroe which not only focuses on well-rounded characters but roots the horror in those very character traits. The nature of the "Horla" (why that name?) may be vague, but its effects are not.

All this, and we get a milieu of the (very) Hollywood version of the Paris of the artistic era of Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec and so forth. I recommend this film really rather highly indeed.

Batman: The Joker Is Wild & Batman Is Riled

The Joker Is Wild

“We think there may be a daring crime plotted!”

I know I keep on banging on about this, but Batman in the comics was not the dark character, or even the Darknight Detective, until the end of the ‘60s at the very earliest when Denny O’Neil and Neal Adams brought back elements of the pulp noir feel of the very early years. But, from the very early ‘40s at the latest, and very much still a thing in 1966 , Batman was a goody two shoes and the comics were rather jolly in tone, certainly with no psychos. That’s the comic this series is adapting, so the high camp tone makes perfect sense.

Except... if you’re not going to portray him as a psychopath, as he is now and was at the very beginning, the Joker is a bit of a rubbish character, isn’t he? Just a giggling loon trying to steal the same sort of prestige stuff as other supervillains but certainly no killing, sadism or darkness. The character falls a bit flat during this period. So Cesar Romero puts in as good a performance as one can expect, and is effective enough but, I think quite clearly, so far it’s easily the Riddler who is top baddie.

Still, this is fun for the usual reasons. The script may not be quite as good without Semple on scribing duties, but it trundles along amusingly enough, with a nice little moment with Batman refusing to park illegally. Like all episodes so far it’s based on a comic book story, on this occasion one that I happen to have read, and it improves notably on the rather rubbish source material.

All the already-established traditions are firmly there- Commissioner Gordon’s stentorian tones before he uses the Batphone, the Batpoles, “Gotham City, 14 miles”, that dash up the steps of the police station. This time we have an amusing, er, springing out of jail from the Joker, who quickly establishes a gang- and, unlike the Penguin but like the Riddler, he has Queenie as his pretty girl (girlfriend?) and token female. We also have Bruce chiding Dick for his reluctance to practice Chopin on the piano because music gives hope for the “brotherhood of man”. Yes, Bruce.

There is a surprisingly early fight, and the Joker is a strangely effective villain with a real talent for publicity and media management. However, it’s increasingly obvious, especially in the big televised opera set piece at the end, that Cesar Romero has refused to shave off his moustache and they’ve just covered it, not very well, with make-up. It’s Henry Cavill in Justice League, fifty years earlier.


Batman Is Riled

“He’s hit us below the belt!”

It’s an interesting cliffhanger- will the Dynamic Duo be unmasked on telly? And the resolution ties into the plot, which is nice- the Joker is jealous of Batman’s utility belt and gets one of his own, so MacGuffins abound. And it’s interesting how the Joker is shown to be winning until the last moment, and making sure the public know about it. A despondent Gotham starts to lose faith in the Batman amid a huge crime wave.

Of course, our heroes win and, in spite of several scenes where they actually seem baffled and struggling for clues, Batman finally outwits the Clown Prince of Crime because of his extensive knowledge, besting millionaire Bruce Wayne, of champagne. There’s a moral for us all there, I feel.

This two parter may be very, very slightly less good than its predecessors, but Batman is still on a very strong opening run.