Pixel Scroll 5/4/25 Scroll The Other One—It’s Got Pixels On It!

(1) JUSTWATCH REVEALS THE MOST-STREAMED STAR WARS TITLES. JustWatch, the world’s leading streaming guide, released an exclusive report ahead of Star Wars Day (May the 4th), diving into the most-streamed titles across the Star Wars universe.

From the timeless legacy of George Lucas’ original trilogy to the power of Disney’s modern revival, JustWatch’s findings reveal how the Force continues to captivate American audiences.

Drawing from millions of data points collected from JustWatch users, the report uncovers the top-performing Star Wars films and series and how streaming preferences vary between generations of fans.

Key Findings

  • “The Mandalorian” Reigns Supreme: Disney+’s flagship series outperformed the original trilogy by over 25%, cementing its status as the most-watched Star Wars title.
  • Film Favorites Still Fly High: Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back remains the most-streamed film from the Lucas-era classics, while The Rise of Skywalker leads among Disney’s theatrical releases.
  • Old vs. New: Though newer series like Ahsoka and Andor surged in popularity in 2024, the original trilogy collectively still held over 30% of the film streaming share.
  • Anakin Showdown: Hayden Christensen’s portrayal in the prequels has seen a resurgence, outpacing Jake Lloyd and even early Mark Hamill-led films in younger demographics.
  • Hidden Gems: Despite critical acclaim, Star Wars: Visions and The Book of Boba Fett landed among the least-streamed titles.

Methodology:  Streaming interest is based on JustWatch user activity globally, from 2019-April 28th, 2025, including interactions such as adding titles to watchlists, click-outs to streaming platforms, and filtering by service providers. JustWatch aggregates data from over 60 million monthly users across 140 countries.

(2) EFFECTIVENESS OF STATE PRODUCTION INCENTIVES. The New York Times asks, “When Taxpayers Fund Shows Like ‘Blue Bloods’ and ‘S.N.L.,’ Does It Pay Off?” (Behind a paywall.)

New Yorkers — and residents of many other states — have paid more for entertainment in recent years than just their Netflix or Hulu subscriptions.

Each New York household has also contributed about $16 in taxes, on average, toward producing the drama series “Billions” since 2017. Over that period, each household has also paid roughly $14.50 in production incentives for “Saturday Night Live” and $4.60 for “The Irishman,” among many other shows and movies.

Add it all up, and New York has spent more than $5.5 billion in incentives since 2017, the earliest year for which data is readily available. Now, as a new state budget agreement nears, Gov. Kathy Hochul has said she wants to add $100 million in credits for independent productions that would bring total film subsidies to $800 million a year, almost double the amount from 2022.

Other states also pay out tens or hundreds of millions each year in a bidding war for Hollywood productions, under the theory that these tax credits spur the economy. One question for voters and lawmakers is whether a state recoups more than its investment in these movies and shows — or gets back only pennies on the dollar….

… A recent study commissioned by Empire State Development, the agency that administers the tax credit, found that for every dollar handed out, about $1.70 was returned via local or state taxes, meaning the program was profitable for the state.

But many economists say these programs are money losers. A separate study commissioned by the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance estimated a return of only 31 cents on the dollar….

…A recent survey of incentive programs by The New York Times estimated that states had paid out more than $25 billion over 20 years. Last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California cited the size of New York’s subsidies when he proposed increasing his state’s tax credits to $750 million from $330 million….

(3) THUNDERBOLTS* CHOICE QUESTIONED. [Item by Steven French.] The Guardian’s Ben Child frets about introducing Sentry into the Marvelverse in the latest “Week in Geek” column: “Has Marvel shot itself in the foot by bringing superfreak Sentry into Thunderbolts*?”

Is there ever a right time to introduce into your superhero universe a psychologically unstable god-being with the potential to sneeze a continent off the map? It is probably not when – 17 years in – you are being accused of having lost half your audience to superhero fatigue. But that’s exactly what Marvel is doing this weekend as Thunderbolts* brings us Sentry, quite possibly the freakiest superhero to ever grace the comic book publisher’s hallowed pages. You thought Rocket Raccoon was weird and unhinged? Reckon Moon Knight is a bit of a handful? This guy makes them look like well-adjusted professionals with decent pensions.

(4) THE HANDMAID’S TALE Q&A. Leading into the show’s final season, in “‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ Wants to End With a Message of Hope” the New York Times hears from actors Yvonne Strahovski and Elizabeth Moss (who is also a producer and director on the series); Bruce Miller, the creator; Warren Littlefield, a producer; and Yahlin Chang and Eric Tuchman, the Season 6 showrunners. (Behind a paywall.)

When you originally conceived of this show, how faithful to Margaret Atwood’s novel did you feel like you had to be?

BRUCE MILLER I first read “The Handmaid’s Tale” in college. I’m dyslexic, so I tend to read the same books over and over. Since it became one of my favorites, I didn’t want to mess it up in an adaptation. The key, for me, was not fealty to the book or Margaret as an artist — it was born out of the storytelling in the novel that had already stood up to a whole bunch of readings. There are parts in it that I have never understood.

ELISABETH MOSS Margaret’s tone is so specific to her voice and writing that it was really important for that to be part of the show. As a producer, if I’m sent something and someone says, “I don’t see how you make this into a film or a show.” I’m like, “Have you read ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’?” It’s a first-person narrative that follows one person’s perspective the entire way, has a ton of loose ends and ends abruptly with no explanation.

Like the book, the show often feels politically prophetic, but it is much more racially and culturally diverse. What were some of your priorities when it came to adapting the novel?

MILLER: I decided at the beginning that fertility would trump everything. That once the fertility rate went down by 95 percent, people’s racism, sexism and whatever-ism would slide. I was completely wrong, based on what happened in the last 10 years. That stuff is more intractable than I ever thought it was. But on a much more practical level, it didn’t make sense for me to, by following the book, keep a whole bunch of actors of color from working.

WARREN LITTLEFIELD We wanted it to be relevant. But if we’re going to resonate, then why not reflect the world we live in?

The show was developed during the Obama years and even then, we could see the radical right rising throughout the world and in the United States. Did we think that was going to settle into the White House? We didn’t. But when we were about to shoot Episode 4, we realized that No. 45 was going to be Donald J. [Trump], so we found ourselves doing this show at that time. Months later, Hulu purchased an ad spot for the show during the Super Bowl, it played twice, and then suddenly we were claimed as part of the resistance….

(5) THE FACE (BOOK) ON THE CUTTING ROOM FLOOR. Steve Verlieb celebrates his release from Facebook jail.

One or ten of you may have noticed that I’ve been “Missing in Action” (M.I.A.) from Facebook for a fairly substantial amount of time.  Whether M.I.A., MS13, OR MSNBC, the fact of the matter is that I’ve been rotting away in Facebook prison without the benefit of legal defense for some time.  While incarcerated, I wasn’t even Afforded a Harrison or “Cell” phone with which to notify friends and family of my precarious circumstances.  My “crimes” included the audacity and utter indignity of sharing my own articles with others of like-minded affiliation and persuasion.  In the depths of my despair, I wasn’t even permitted to drown my virtual sorrow in the local prison “bars.”  I was surreptitiously removed from active recognition and participation on Unsocial Media by I.C.E. without the lawful declaration of my Lin-Manuel “Miranda” rights.

My eventual “sentence,” while not quite as long as a “paragraph,” was nonetheless both shameful and humiliating.  Denied the privilege of legal counsel, with not an active “Mason” in the “Big House,” not even Raymond Burr (or even Aaron Burr) could help me “Escape from Alcatraz.”  Despite the presence of some illustrious prison mates, like Charlie “Byrd,” man, with no strings attached, this proverbial “Jailhouse” did not “Rock.”  Not even my continuing letters and messages to friends and neighbors offered any semblance of appeal or hope of freedom, and so I fled into a “Long Day’s Journey into Night,” while desperately hiding the disgrace that “I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang.”

With an increasingly inflationary Writ for what I Wrote upon my head, the gavel ultimately sent me to the gravel under the cruel reign of Warden Zuckerberg.  It seemed that I’d become a permanent resident of “The Big House” when suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, I was delivered a perhaps tentative reprieve, and allowed access to the burning blaze of freedom once more.  Free At Last, Free At Last, I was a “Stranger in a Strange Land,” having to re-learn the “dues” and don’ts, as well as the ins and outs, of safe navigation across the inflamed countryside of social media.  However, I must be up Front in my declaration of joy in being Back once more, and I sincerely hope that you’ll both forgive, and pardon my pardon … with “Biberty” and James Robertson Justice for All.

(6) JACK KATZ (1927-2025) In “Jack Katz, 1927-2025”, The Comics Journal profiles the late creator’s complete 60-plus-year career.

Artist/writer Jack Katz, whose ambitious indy epic, The First Kingdom, laid the groundwork in the 1970s for long-form graphic narratives like Cerebus, died April 24 at the age of 97. If he had not published that science-fantasy saga, it’s likely that Katz would have been regarded as just a journeyman artist, who tried — with little success — to make a living in comics. As it is, he will be remembered for his attempt, during the waning days of underground comics, to put out one of the first self-published graphic novels….

… After he moved to California, Katz encountered underground comics and realized that self-publishing would give him the freedom to craft his own stories and art without anyone dictating to him the direction and scope of his story or the pace at which he had to work, which was always an issue with the slow and meticulous Katz.

He began putting out The First Kingdom in 1974, published by Comics & Comix Co., which remained his publisher until 1977 (issues #1–6). Longtime book-dealer and fanzine-publisher Bud Plant took over publishing from 1977 until 1986, re-offering #2-6 and completing Katz’ first story cycle of 24 issues. Always a deliberate and diligent worker, Katz only put out two issues a year and wrote and drew every comic, never working with assistants. No one had ever done an independent comic book quite like The First Kingdom, and Katz’s efforts were praised in the pages of both Playboy magazine and the Rocket’s Blast Comicollector fanzine. Although the series had its fervent adherents, Katz’ fan base was never very large, because his comic book never had newsstand distribution and was only available by mail order, in comics shops or in head shops alongside underground comics like Zap Comics, Slow Death and The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers. Its commercial appeal was also limited by the infrequency with which the title appeared and by its adult content, which restricted its venues.

The First Kingdom storyline was a fantasy/science-fiction hybrid, with a growing emphasis on the science fiction component by the sixth issue. It began in a primitive, post-nuclear world populated by barbaric peoples, anthropomorphic gods and strange monsters…. 

(7) TODAY’S BIRTHDAY.

[Written by Cat Eldridge.]

May 4, 1976Gail Carriger, 49.

Steampunk and mannerpunk, it’s time to talk about both, specifically that as written by our birthday author, Gail Carriger.  

Where to start? Her first novel, Soulless, is set in an alternate version of Victorian era Britain where werewolves and vampires are members of proper society. Alexia Tarabotti is a wonderful created character that anyone would love to have an adventure with, as well as sit down with to high tea in the afternoon. 

The book begins the Parasol Protectorate series centered around her, which as of now goes on to have ChangelessBlameless, oh guess, Heartless and Timeless in it, plus one short story, “Meat Cute”. Why the latter broke the naming convention I know not.

Wait, wait, don’t tell me! — she’s done more mannerpunk. Indeed she has. There is Custard Protocol series (Prudence ImprudenceCompetence and Reticence), also set in Parasol Protectorate universe. When Prudence “Rue” Alessandra Maccon Akeldama , a young woman with metahuman abilities, is left an unexpected dirigible in a will , she does what any sensible (ha!) alternative Victorian Era female would do — she names it the Spotted Custard and floats off to India. Need I say adventures of a most unusual kind follow? I really love this series and not just for the name of the series. It’s just fun. Really fun.

The Finishing School series is set in Parasol Protectorate universe. Again she has a delightful manner in naming her tales, Etiquette & EspionageCurtsies & ConspiraciesWaistcoats & Weaponry and Manners & Mutiny. Go ahead, I think you can figure what this series is about without me telling you. It’s delightful of course.

So I’m not that familiar with her other writing. It appears the two Delightfully Deadly novellas might have a tinge of romance in them though at least one also has dead husbands, four to be precise, lobsters and of course high society. Lobsters? 

The Claw & Courtship novellas are standalone stories set in the Parasol Protectorate universe. So far there’s just “How to Marry a Werewolf (In 10 Easy Steps)”, though she says there’ll be more.

Finally, I’ll note she did a SF series, the Tinkered Stars Universe series — how can this possibly be? — which she describes on her website as “a sexy alien police procedural on a space station”. Oh, that sounds so good. It consists of Divinity 36Demigod 22Dome 6Crudat and The 5th Gender

Did she do short stories? Just six, of which I really want to read one — “The Curious Case of the Werewolf that Wasn’t, The Mummy that Was and the Cat in the Jar”.

Gail Carriger

(8) COMICS SECTION.

(9) THE SYNDICATE’S TAKIN’ OVER. Rick Marschall starts a series on newspaper syndication in “Yesterday’s Papers: An Inside Look Into The Bullpen Of Early Hearst Cartoonists”.

…The competition, particularly among their comics and cartoons, between Hearst and his rivals, had become so intense that some services had a surfeit of talent. By 1917 his comics operation filled the daily and Sunday pages of the dozen papers in the Hearst chain.  A few years earlier the Hearst organization had spun off Buster BrownLittle NemoPolly and Her Pals, and other strips under a purportedly rival umbrella, the Newspaper Feature Service. This enabled Hearst papers to run two comic sections every weekend, perhaps one on Saturday, or to provide Hearst rivals in certain cities with their own comic sections that didn’t appear to be generated by Hearst! (In New York City, for instance, Hearst’s deadly competitor the New York Tribune was able to run a four-page NFS color comic section that appeared to readers to be the Trib‘s own.)

By 1917, Hearst’s lieutenant Moses Koenigsberg split up the syndicate operations even further. Eventually there was King Features, a sort of holding company or sales agent for all the syndicates; Central Press Association; International Feature Service, Newspaper Feature Service; and others. The material we will be sharing here and over subsequent weeks is from a rare book published for prospective clients by the International Feature Service….

(10) TRIVIAL TRIVIA. Alvin!!!

(11) MURDERBOT SHOWRUNNERS Q&A. The Grue Rume Show interviews film makers Chris Weitz and Paul Weitz. They write and direct Season 1 of Apple TV show MurderBot. “Chris Weitz and Paul Weitz talks Murderbot!!”

(12) ALEXANDER SKARSGÅRD’S SWEDISH MOMENTS. The Swedish actor’s occasional use of his native language in otherwise English-language productions is celebrated in this interview conducted by Jonatan Blomberg from Moviezine: “Murderbot, Lady Gaga & True Blood”.

I had a truly awesome time with Alexander Skarsgård, one of our best Swedish actors right now! We spoke about the times he’s been bringing our Swedish language in to American productions – which is also the case (in one brief moment) in his new show Murderbot. Here he tries to remember the “krokodil” when skinny-dipping in True Blood and sharing a bed while chatting in Swedish with LADY GAGA in the Paparazzi music video.

(13) HOW THE LEAD CHOSE THIS ROLE. And if you haven’t had enough, Winter Is Coming also scored a few minutes with the lead: “Alexander Skarsgård: Murderbot EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW!”

Winter Is Coming’s Daniel Roman sits down with Murderbot star Alexander Skarsgård to talk about becoming the SecUnit at the heart of Apple’s new comedic sci-fi series, how he embodied the character, and guilty TV pleasures.

(14) THEY DON’T LISTEN TO GURATHIN. This interview with the actor who plays Gurathin has much deeper insights into the series, plus clips: “David Dastmalchian talks ‘Murderbot’ and more: A blockbuster year for the versatile star” at Pix11 News.

[Thanks to Chris Barkley, Cat Eldridge, SF Concatenation’s Jonathan Cowie, Mark Roth-Whitworth, Steven French, Kathy Sullivan, Teddy Harvia, Mike Kennedy, Andrew Porter, and John King Tarpinian for some of these stories. Title credit belongs to File 770 contributing editor of the day Kip W.]

Steve Vertlieb Review: Somewhere In Time

Introduction: “There were a number of factors that led me to forming INSITE (International Network of Somewhere in Time Enthusiasts). High on that list was a SIT review I read in Cinemacabre magazine by writer Steve Vertlieb. It expressed my feelings exactly, but in words I would never be able to match. I call it “The Best Somewhere in Time Review” — Bill Shepard (filmblanc.info)

Somewhere In Time Review

(The following review was originally published in the Summer 1981 issue of Cinemacabre magazine. It is reprinted here by permission of the author. Steve Vertlieb is a writer, a poet, and an authority on films and film soundtrack music. He is the subject of an upcoming documentary film, Steve Vertlieb: The Man Who “Saved” the Movies)

By Steve Vertlieb: The movies have once again taken a step backward, not in a negative or misdirected sense but in a positive rechanneling of the empty cynicism that seemed to engulf the screen over the past two decades. Perhaps it is the painful realization that doubt for its own sake yields little more than further doubt. Whatever the reasons, it seems clear that world cinema is drifting slowly backward to the timeless innocence which, for many of us, shaped and nurtured our most precious dreams of fulfillment.

Somewhere In Time is an exquisite film, a lovely, moving, romantic fantasy whose like has not graced theatre screens in more than thirty years. It is an irony that so splendid a film has emerged in the callous Eighties, a decade which promises still less humanity than the years that preceded it. And yet these are those callous Eighties, and Somewhere In Time has managed to survive its translation to the screen. Perhaps there remains a tiny glimmer of hope that dreams of beauty continue to brighten the human spirit.

Based upon the novel Bid Time Return by Richard Matheson and meticulously adapted for the screen, Somewhere In Time tells the torturous story of a man whose obsession for the haunting portrait of a famous actress leads him on a tantalizing odyssey through the gates of time. The call from the past is doubly intense for this is a shared obsession. In a marvelously directed prologue, a frail elderly woman emerges slowly from the shadows of a room brightly lit with well-wishers to place in the hands of an astonished Richard Collier a rare, delicately crafted pocket watch. As she takes his hands into her own, the old woman whispers a message: “Come back to me.” She turns from Collier and from life as she walks slowly out of the room and enters her own apartment for the last time. Her goal completed, Elise McKenna, the most celebrated actress of her generation, dies peacefully in her sleep.

Richard Matheson borrowed his original title from a quotation found in Shakespeare. The play is Richard II, Act 3, Scene 2. The simple dialogue that inspired the writer… “O, call back yesterday, bid time return.” Richard Collier attempts to find the love that he lost in another life and to himself bid time return. Utilizing the hidden resources within his own mind, Collier commits himself to a laborious process of self-hypnosis and wills his consciousness back to the turn of the century. There he meets and courts the elusive spirit who has summoned him from somewhere in time.

Filmed in its entirety at the Grand Hotel on Mackinac Island in Michigan, this tender love story is, in a sense, itself lost within the eternal current of time. Director Jeannot Szwarc, whose pedestrian handling of Jaws 2 drowned in a ravenous sea of creative indecision, has come miraculously to life with a screenplay obviously suited to his profoundly sensitive inclination. Permitting two years to elapse before deciding on a project worthy of his consideration, Szwarc’s obvious affinity for horizons lost has found expression in the green and fertile hills of Shangri-La. As in James Hilton’s celebrated tale of an idealized land, safe from strife and torment and found perhaps in dreams alone, Matheson’s bittersweet novel aspires to the ethereal. It is in this celestial embrace between lovers marooned on opposing ends of infinity that Szwarc and Matheson envision their romantic Valley of the Blue Moon, a perfect and wonderfully improbable romance whose players transcend the boundaries of wistful imaginings.

Szwarc’s handling of each haunting moment is as subtle as it is tender. Never allowing the pace of the story to be eclipsed by the momentary demands of television’s fast food bred audiences, the director’s realization of every sequence is timeless and almost painfully precise. Like Portrait of Jennie, William Dieterle’s masterpiece of another age, Szwarc’s framing of every moment reflects the care and meticulous preservation of beauty that in the last analysis separates mere commercial success from artistic achievement. In that rare and wondrous awakening of Richard Collier’s senses as he wanders through the Hall of History, discovering among the relics the precious portrait of Elise McKenna beckoning to him from the past, there is a warmth, a sense of coming home, that seems to light up the screen. The film is filled with such lovely moments. As Collier struggles to will his mind back to the turn of the century, the subtle imprint of antique furnishings appears subliminally against the wall of his room, as though his consciousness were trying to imagine and retain an elusive thought.

Somewhere In Time owes much to the tender, romantic fantasies of the Forties … films such as Stairway to Heaven/A Matter of Life and Death, Between Two Worlds, Wuthering Heights, and, in particular, the aforementioned Portrait of Jennie and The Ghost and Mrs. Muir … and certainly to the directorial influence of Michael Powell, William Dieterle, and Joseph L. Mankiewicz. While these debts must be acknowledged, Somewhere In Time remains a distinctly original creation with ample charm, grace, and warmth to sustain its own magical influence for years to come.

Christopher Reeve in the pivotal role of Richard Collier is superb, proving to his detractors that an actor lay beneath the cape of blue and red. The depth of Reeve’s performance builds gently and deliberately, culminating in an astonishingly moving signature to his work. Jane Seymour is a vision of haunting loveliness, capturing perfectly the eternal allure of the memorable Elise McKenna, her beauty endearing and enduring. Christopher Plummer, as ever suave, debonair and joyously eloquent … a formidable adversary in any respectable triangle.

However, the real stars of this enchanted film are director Szwarc, screenwriter Matheson, cinematographer Isidore Mankofsky, and composer John Barry whose apparent feeling for his material transcended mere contractual agreements, inspiring the loveliest work of his career. For Richard Matheson, perhaps the most gifted and versatile fantasy writer of his time, the successful filming of Bid Time Return is yet another milestone in a career already sparkling with achievement. Interestingly, the author has taken a part in his own story, appearing briefly as the “astonished man” who greets Christopher Reeve with ill-concealed contempt as the latter exits the hotel washroom.

In its final bittersweet moments, Somewhere In Time suggests a glimpse at the eternal, a poetic prelude to love after death whose haunting ascent and profoundly disturbing significance guide the film to its unforgettable conclusion. Somewhere In Time is an exquisite pearl draped in film, an ethereal journey whose heart and soul realize no earthly boundaries… for these are matters of the spirit alone, matters to be resolved at last … “Somewhere in Time.”


AFTERWORD. Richard Matheson was one of a small handful of science fiction/fantasy writers whose profound, subtle prose elevated the genre to sublime eloquence. He was one of my very favorite writers from childhood until the present. Along with Lovecraft, Bloch, Bradbury, Clarke and, more recently, James Herbert, these writers influenced my life more significantly than I will ever be able to adequately impart. He was a poet who was blessed with the gift of imagination. I had the honor of meeting him once very briefly in Crystal City, Virginia, at Forry Ackerman’s 1993 Famous Monsters convention. We both shared a long friendship with Robert Bloch.

One of my proudest possessions is a photograph taken of the three of us at that wonderful convention. His sensitivity and grace dwelt in the ethereal, as evidenced by the haunting vocal soliloquy voiced by Robert Scott Carey during the unforgettable final moments of “The Incredible Shrinking Man…”

“I looked up, as if somehow I would grasp the heavens. The universe, worlds beyond number, God’s silver tapestry spread across the night. And in that moment I knew the answer to the riddle of the infinite. That existence begins and ends is man’s conception, not nature’s. And I felt my body dwindling, melting, becoming nothing. My fears melted away, and in their place came acceptance. All this vast majesty of creation, it had to mean something. And, then, I meant something too. Yes, smaller than the smallest, I meant something too. To God, there is no zero. I still exist.”

In your vast majesty of creation, Mr. Matheson, you still exist. Your words shall continue to breathe life into this often drab, mortal plane of creative thought and energy for as long as meaning and beauty endure. To God, there is no zero. You shall ever continue to create…in our hearts, and in our thoughts. Rest well, for true existence has only just begun as you softly “Bid Time Return.”

Steve Vertlieb, Richard Matheson, and Robert Bloch.

Pixel Scroll 3/11/25 The Demolished Hobbit

(1) TERRY BROOKS ANNOUNCES SEMI-RETIREMENT. Shannara series author Terry Brooks is stepping back. Delilah S. Dawson will be producing future installments. “Easy Come, Easy Go” at Terry Brooks Online.

Let’s start with a few life facts that I have come to accept and just recently decided to address. I am now eighty-one years old. I have been writing in the Shannara series since 1968 – which is more than fifty years. I have written steadily with no breaks save for vacations and illnesses. I have a total count of just under fifty books to my name as of today. In all that time, I have been writing at least one book or often two at the same time.

I am still writing regularly, but I noticed recently that my physical and mental abilities have diminished. Not that I am derailed in any measurable way from what I was, but my endurance, concentration, attention span and memory are not what they once were. All this is a function of what aging involves and living requires of us at one point or another. I knew this was coming, but I did not expect it when it arrived and have spent my eightieth year coming to terms with its presence. Whatever happens, I do not want to be one of those writers who is remembered for going on a bit too long than his or her faculties could tolerate and thereby produce books that are less than my best work.

Accordingly, I have decided to step back from my intense writing lifestyle and settle down into a form or semi-retirement. This was a hard choice to make. I hate to admit that I don’t have the abilities I once had.  But better to face up to your diminishments than pretend they don’t exist. Better to make some adjustments to account for the onset of those diminishments before the readers you rely on to support your efforts begin to point them out.

Beginning immediately, with the publishing of my new book GALAPHILE, I am stepping back in my author role and engaging help from another writer in steering the series in the proper direction with the necessary amount of care. I will no longer be doing the primary writing. My new co-author will take on that task. Instead, I will offer what help I can with providing storyline ideas, revisionary plot suggestions and a thorough overview that will help my co-author to continue to give you the kind of book you would expect of me. I know her well and have been friends with her for years. Both my editor and I have agreed that she is the right choice to take on the task of continuing SHANNARA. That she can provide the skills and inventiveness that is needed to accomplish this is something of which I am sure. She is every bit as professionally capable and committed as I am. What help and support I can give her, I will. That she will give you what you want and expect is something I am certain she will do.

Her name is Delilah Dawson, and she is a skilled professional writer and a delightful person.  If you haven’t read any of her work to date, I encourage you to do so now….

Delilah S Dawson and Terry Brooks

(2) WORLDS OF IF #178. Justin T. O’Conor Sloane, Editor-in-Chief of the Starship Sloane Publishing Company, has announced that the second issue of Worlds of IF, the relaunched classic science fiction magazine, is available to order: Buy Worlds of IF: Science Fiction #178. Click here to see the Table of Contents.

The cover art is by Rodney Matthews (front) and Marianne Plumridge (back).

(3) SCIENCE WRITERS CONFERENCE CANCELLED. [Item by John A Arkansawyer.] Carnegie Mellon and Pitt were trading hosting duties. Now they’re not, thanks in part to budget cuts: “Pitt, CMU pull out of hosting conference for science writers” from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Citing federal funding cuts, the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University have pulled out of a prior commitment to host a science conference that would have brought around 1,000 visitors to the city.

The ScienceWriters conference, put on by the National Association of Science Writers and the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing, has been an annual mainstay for science journalists and communicators for years. Pitt and CMU had agreed on Nov. 6 to host and fund the conference and act as the hosting city, which rotates each year, per a Wednesday statement from the association.

“On Feb. 13, 2025, representatives of both universities informed CASW that they were withdrawing their commitment, including the financial support, for the conference,” per the statement. “Despite our efforts, subsequent discussions have not led to a resolution.”

Both Pitt and CMU said the decision to step away from the conference was directly related to federal cuts to research funding, saying those cuts cinched resources that would have otherwise made the hosting doable….

(4) SEVERAL TOP NASA STAFF CHOPPED. “NASA Eliminates Chief Scientist and Other Jobs at Its Headquarters” reports the New York Times.

NASA is eliminating its chief scientist and other roles as part of efforts by the Trump administration to pare back staff at the agency’s Washington headquarters.

The cuts affect about 20 employees at NASA, including Katherine Calvin, the chief scientist and a climate science expert. The last day of work for Dr. Calvin and the other staff members will be April 10.

That could be a harbinger of deeper cuts to NASA’s science missions and a greater emphasis on human spaceflight, especially to Mars. During President Trump’s address to Congress last week, he said, “We are going to lead humanity into space and plant the American flag on the planet Mars and even far beyond.”

Mr. Trump did not give a timeline for astronauts to reach the red planet, and during an interview on Fox News on Sunday, he said it was not a top priority. “Is it No. 1 on my hit list?” he said. “No. It’s not really.”

He added, “It’d be a great achievement.”

The administration sent notice to Congress on Monday that NASA was abolishing the Office of the Chief Scientist and the Office of Technology, Policy and Strategy….

(5) FANS REACT TO NEW YASSIFIED SHREK. [Item by Mike Kennedy.] Hey, sometimes an ogre of a certain age just needs a bit of, shall we say, touch-up, to feel and look their best. “Did Shrek Get a Nose Job?” asks New York Magazine.

Shrek might live in Far Far Away, but he looks like he just came back from somewhere even Farther Away: Turkey. In a newly released trailer for the highly anticipated Shrek 5, Shrek, Fiona, and their daughter (voiced by Zendaya), and Donkey all gather to scroll through ogre-thirst-trap memes with mister Mirror Mirror on the Wall. There’s no time to discuss how on the nose this is, because Shrek and Fiona have visibly undergone radical, off-putting facial reconstruction. I don’t care that these ogres are a mere amalgamation of zeros and ones inside some DreamWorks animator’s computer. This is serious.

Donkey somehow looks the same level of goofy as before, but Shrek’s and Fiona’s new faces are … jarring. Their noses are shaped differently, their philtrums are less pronounced and longer, their lips and smiles curve in odd ways, and both of them have seemingly larger eyes. It’s like they both got processed through Alix Earle’s favorite TikTok smoothing filter, or as one user on X wrote: “rhinoplasty, lip filler, cheek implants, jaw shave, chin reduction, face lift, blepharoplasty, buccal fat removal, botox, eye lift, cheek filler.”…

(6) DOCUMENTARY TRACKS THE LAST OF STAN LEE. [Item by N.] The framing here seems similar to Abraham Riesman’s nonfiction book True Believer: The Rise and Fall of Stan Lee (nominated for Related Work in 2022). Will this bring the situation to a wider audience? “Stan Lee Doc Alleges Exploitation in Final Years of His Life” at IndieWire.

A new documentary on Marvel Comics co-creator Stan Lee claims that Lee was mistreated and exploited by some of those in his inner circle during the last few years of his life.

Jon Bolerjack, a comic book artist and a former assistant to Lee during the last four years of Lee’s life, filmed the documentary and on Tuesday launched a Kickstarter campaign looking for funding to complete the film, titled “Stan Lee: The Final Chapter.” In a trailer for the movie, Bolerjack says Lee spent “his final years enduring mistreatment, manipulation, and betrayal at the hands of a few very bad actors.”

At this writing, the Kickstarter has raised $29,079 of its $300,000 goal.

Bolerjack says the film includes interviews with other witnesses close to Lee and with comic book creators like Rob Liefeld and Roy Thomas. It also concludes with a string of interviews with other comic book artists who have seen an early cut of the footage discussing what they say are some of the shocking details.

“Seeing Stan in that situation, being taken advantage of, was really hard to watch,” artist Tyler Kirkham says in the trailer.

“I had no idea how badly he had been exploited, and that’s a message people need to hear,” comic book writer Mark Waid added.

Lee, who passed away in 2018 at age 95, was the subject of an investigation from THR shortly before his death in which it was claimed that he was the victim of elder abuse and had other individuals improperly influencing his family members and worked to gain control of his assets and money. Lee’s estate in 2023 lost an elder abuse lawsuit on a technicality against a former attorney, but Bolerjack’s documentary claims to explore other aspects of Lee’s exploitation.

The trailer for the documentary does not name any individuals specifically, but it has several sequences involving Max Anderson, Lee’s former road manager for many of his convention appearances. Anderson was named in THR’s 2018 investigation, though he has denied wrongdoing…

(7) WHEN THE WICKED WITCH LANDED ON SESAME STREET. The Wikipedia explains why you probably haven’t seen “Episode 847”.

Episode 847 (commonly known as the “Wicked Witch episode“) is the 52nd episode from the seventh season of the American educational children’s television series Sesame Street. It was directed by Robert Myhrum and written by Joseph A. Bailey, Judy Freudberg and Emily Kingsley, it originally aired on PBS on February 10, 1976. The episode involves the Wicked Witch of the West, from the film The Wizard of Oz (1939), losing her broomstick over Sesame Street and causing havoc as she attempts to recover it. Margaret Hamilton, who portrayed the witch in the film, reprises her role in the episode. Produced as the 52nd episode of the series’ seventh season, the episode was created to teach children how to overcome their fears.

Shortly after its premiere, the creators of the series and Children’s Television Workshop received numerous letters from angry parents, who said that the Wicked Witch had frightened their children. Due to this, the episode was pulled from rebroadcast and was not seen by the public again until 2019, when clips of the episode were shown during a “Lost and Found” event celebrating Sesame Street’s 50th anniversary and the full episode was archived in the Library of Congress. It was then only available for private viewing until June 2022, when it was leaked online by an unknown individual.

Scribbles To Screen is one of the YouTubers who have analyzed the episode: “Wicked Witch Sesame Street Episode Found”.

(8) TODAY’S BIRTHDAY.

[Written by Paul Weimer.]

March 11, 1952Douglas Adams. (Died 2001.)

By Paul Weimer: Douglas Adams is an author who competes with the equally late Terry Pratchett as the greatest humorist in science fiction and fantasy history. 

I think of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy as a sort of ever being re-written palimpsest. You have surely heard the stories that Adams was writing some of the original radio scripts right before the actual BBC broadcast. While this shows his ability to produce on the cutting edge of a deadline, it does mean that the polish wasn’t there. But the genius, secret of Adams was that he could write, and rewrite his work, changing it, tweaking it, altering it, reflecting it. 

The core story is always there. An ordinary human (or at least he starts ordinary), Arthur Dent, winds up on an adventure in time and space when his house, and then his planet are scheduled for demolition. The details change from iteration to iteration, from radio plays, to novels, to the TV series, to the video game (one of the hardest Infocom games!  That damned Babel fish!) to the movie. But the main throughline is the same. A humorous irrepressible set of characters, situations and ideas that he continually and enthusiastically refined and refined.  Just like Greek Mythology is not a monolith, neither is The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

A person who hated and despised me in High School had exactly one thing in common with me–we were perhaps the only two people in the entire school who knew what a Vogon was. I had seen the TV show first, then read the novel, then played the game, and then only some years later when they came available on the internet, actually got to listen to the versions of the radio plays and learned the real story. I remember being upset at the changes, but have mellowed and come to see the genius of his endless reinvention and updating of the material. 

And then there was Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency, which is such a weird and unusual bird of an idea, and it was born, as it were, from the unfinished Doctor Who episode “Shada” that he wrote.  (Yes, he wrote two of my favorite DW episodes, “The Pirate Planet” and “City of Death”. “Shada” would have been his second).  Ghosts, time travel, changing history, and wry British humor.  And of course, in Adams fashion, there are TV and audio adaptations of Dirk Gently, where, again, the work is changed, refined, and the palimpsest nature of his writing and humor and creations comes to light again. 

Thinking of his work, in any of its iterations, always brings to me a smile. He died in 2001. Requiescat in pace. I raise a Pangalactic gargle blaster to you, good sir.

Douglas Adams

(9) COMICS SECTION.

(10) DAVID EHRLICH TAKEDOWN. “’The Electric State’ Review: Another Lifeless Netflix Mockbuster” accuses IndieWire’s critic David Ehrlich.

Whatever your expectations for a (supposedly) $320 million Russo brothers Netflix movie starring Chris Pratt as a Chris Pratt type, Millie Bobby Brown as a wannabe Edward Furlong, and Woody Harrelson as the voice of an animatronic Mr. Peanut, I would recommend that you lower them.

A derivative, self-impressed, and seriously confused adventure set in the aftermath of a global war between humans and the talking robots that were “invented” by Walt Disney to amuse tourists at his theme parks (suck it, William Grey Walter!), “The Electric State” is essentially a feature-length adaptation of the argument its directors have been making in the press since “Avengers: Endgame,” the scale and success of which seemed to convince them it was the ultimate film in every sense of the word, and thus inspired them to proselytize about how cinema as we know it is about to be replaced by AI holograms of Tom Cruise or whatever. …

… Truth be told, there isn’t a single laugh — or even a knowing smile — to be found in this relentlessly stale ordeal, which does for sci-fi adventure comedies what “The Gray Man” did for action thrillers: absolutely nothing….

(11) GRRM CAMEO. Did you catch these George R. R. Martin and Robert Redford cameos in the Season 3 premiere of Dark Winds? “High Stakes Chess feat. George R. R. Martin and Robert Redford!” New episodes premiere Sundays at 9:00 p.m. on AMC and AMC+.

Dark Winds is an American psychological thriller television series created by Graham Roland. Based on the Leaphorn & Chee novel series by Tony Hillerman… Executive producers include Roland, McClarnon, George R. R. Martin and Robert Redford.

(12) ON THE ROAD. And Michael Cassutt, in a “Not-A-Blog Guest Post” tells what he’s doing for GRRM.

This is not your occasional message from George or the minions of Fevre River, but a new addition to the team – I’m Michael Cassutt, writer of fiction, non-fiction, lots of television (TWILIGHT ZONE, MAX HEADROOM, EERIE INDIANA, more recently THE DEAD ZONE and Z-NATION).  Since October I’ve been working with George as his “creative director,” helping to shape and advance non-HBO TV, film and game projects and even some publishing. (No, I’m not “helping” George with his writing.)

Last spring and early summer I directed a short film titled THE SUMMER MACHINE, based on a lost TWILIGHT ZONE TV concept by George, from my script. We shot for eight days in Alamagordo and Las Cruces, New Mexico, with a cast led by Lina Esco, Charles Martin Smith and Matt Frewer, and just recently finalized the cut.

This is the fifth film that George has produced, following four adaptations of stories by his great friend Howard Waldrop: NIGHT OF THE COOTERS, HEIRS OF THE PERISPHERE, MARY MARGARET ROAD-GRADER and THE UGLY CHICKENS. Four are complete.

So what do you do with a short film? Theatrical exhibition is always a goal, but difficult for even feature-length projects these days.

Streaming? Yes, but you have a short film, under 40 minutes in length. Where does it fit on Netflix, Amazon, Apple+ etc.? Almost nowhere.

But you want your film seen, so . . . .

You hit the festival circuit….

(13) STEVE VERTLIEB Q&A. Interfleet Broadcasting brings viewers “75 Years Of Cherished Reflections And Memories From A Nearly 80 Year Old ‘Monster Kid’”. Steve’s segment begins 48 minutes into the video. Originally aired on Leap Day last year.

Join us for an interview with actor writer and Film Journalist Steve Vertlieb. He has spent most of his life around film makers!. John 1 hosts with the Tipsy Toaster since NY Pete is exploring and trying to find his way. Tiny Bean is also on Deck that is if those pesky internet people fix the lines after an Arcta class storm.” I was both honored and humbled on February 29th, 2024 to do a ninety-minute interview with the folks at Interfleet Broadcasting that I hope you’ll find interesting. We discuss Science Fiction/Fantasy/Horror Films and Literature, as well as Ray Harryhausen, Ray Bradbury, “King Kong,” Boris Karloff, Robert Bloch, Peter Cushing, Buster Crabbe, Frank Sinatra, the early years of television, and the history of Music for the Movies, with such composers as Bernard Herrmann, Miklos Rozsa, and John Williams. I’d like to thank the hosts of the program for their most gracious kindness toward me. You’ll find the interview some forty-eight minutes into the broadcast.

[Thanks to Mike Kennedy, Andrew Porter, John King Tarpinian, N., Steve Vertlieb, John A Arkansawyer, Justin T. O’Conor Sloane, Chris Barkley, Cat Eldridge, SF Concatenation’s Jonathan Cowie, Mark Roth-Whitworth, Steven French, Kathy Sullivan, and Teddy Harvia for some of these stories. Title credit belongs to File 770 contributing editor of the day Daniel “Good, Bester, Best!” Dern.]

Remembering Gene Hackman

By Steve Vertlieb: How does one express grief at the passing of a stranger?  How do we examine our mourning over the death of someone we do not know, or have never met?  But we do know him.  We have met … many times. He has been a substantial part of our lives for sixty years.  Gene Hackman was a consummate actor, a consistent professional and endearing screen companion for more than half a century.  From his beginning presence on network television on shows like The United States Steel Hour, Naked City, and Route 66 in the early 1960’s to his explosive rendering of Clyde Barrow’s brother, “Buck,” alongside Warren Beatty in Bonnie and Clyde in 1967, Hackman grew in theatrical stature over the ensuing decades, offering a wide variety of emotional palates and characterizations in a virtual master class of dramatic growth as an actor.  His range of expression floated effortlessly from drama to comedy, while his intensity as an artist grew ever more startling and enduring with the ensuing decades.

As the son of an aging parent alongside Melvyn Douglas in I Never Sang for My Father in 1970, Hackman meticulously conveyed the anguish and frustration of an adult child having to deal with familial dementia, both loving and loathing his stern, unforgiving parent in the bitter throes of Alzheimer’s Disease.  Their anger exploding into raging tirades, Hackman fights for his own personal identity and pride, while trying to understand and respect the dominance of his overbearing and controlling father. The battle for survival of wills by both father and adult son is often too painful for either to endure.

It was in 1971 that the visage and intensity of Gene Hackman dominated both the screen and audiences around the world in his commanding performance of real-life cop “Popeye” Doyle in William Friedkin’s brilliant thriller, The French Connection. Raging recklessly through the streets and subways of New York in search of a notorious drug dealer, Hackman captured the hearts and devotion of millions with his theatrical intensity, unfettered bravado and abandonment of civility in bringing to justice a criminal warlord.

Hackman in The French Connection

The following year saw Hackman burn up the screen yet again as a conflicted clergyman, devoid of faith, finding strength and inspiration once more in his heroism, battling frustration and physical obstruction while saving a handful of survivors in a calamitous sea disaster.  Irwin Allen’s The Poseidon Adventure saw the rupture and nightmarish decimation of a luxury liner on New Year’s Eve, overturned in mid-ocean by a cataclysmic tidal wave.  His courage, determination, and eventual self-sacrifice provided the memorable thriller with its heart and spiritual soul.

In Francis Ford Coppola’s complex, frenetic thriller, The Conversation in 1974, Hackman plays Harry Caul, a paranoid surveillance expert discovering a murder plot, while eavesdropping for a client. Caul’s meticulous machinations, and obsessive-compulsive behavior, lead him down a path of deception, betrayal, and ultimate emotional self-destruction.  Hackman’s portrayal of Caul’s solitary intellectual dementia is a fascinating document of inner turmoil and mental sabotage.  It is a superb performance.

1974 saw one of Hackman’s most bizarre, inspired, and brilliant comedic characterizations in Mel Brooks’ Young Frankenstein.  A cinematic tribute to James Whale’s singular horror classic, Bride of Frankenstein (Universal, 1935), Hackman’s uncredited satirical rendering of O.P. Heggie’s original poignant blind hermit characterization opposite Boris Karloff is unforgettable comic insanity and genius. With Peter Boyle enacting the role of the “Monster,” Hackman’s burlesque interpretation of the bungling backwoodsman, physically hidden below layers of silver facial hair, is quite simply a delectable, utterly hilarious tour de force, and undeniably among the most iconic comedy sequences in cinema history.

The first major big screen adaptation of Superman in 1978, directed by Richard Donner and starring Christopher Reeve as the “Man of Steel,” featured Gene Hackman in another satiric performance as Lex Luthor, Clark Kent’s wisecracking nemesis.  Over the top, yet funny as hell, Hackman’s sarcastic conman is comically reminiscent of Dan Ayckroyd’s often bizarre, sleazy characterizations on Saturday Night Live, yet more cunningly sophisticated and intelligent. 

Hoosiers in 1986 offered Hackman another outlet for his impassioned heroism as a small-town Indiana high school coach, daring his downtrodden basketball team to achieve greatness on the field.  With thrilling musical accompaniment by veteran composer Jerry Goldsmith, and Hackman’s stubborn, yet inspiring belief in the power of dreams, the film is a rousing, vibrant, thoroughly entertaining success.

In 1987’s No Way Out, a vague remake of The Big Clock (1948), Hackman plays a severely compromised government official who, after a jealous rage, murders his lover, devising an intricate plot to shield his guilt by falsely implicating another.  His insidious cowardice is his unwitting undoing.

Mississippi Burning, released in 1988 and directed by acclaimed filmmaker Alan Parker, is loosely based upon the 1964 investigation into the deaths of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner, three young civil rights workers in Mississippi, violently slain by hooded members of the Ku Klux Klan. Hackman, in a deeply felt, powerful performance as an FBI agent assigned to the case, brings both passion and personal rage to his performance, elevating this factual story of bigotry and racism in the Deep South to unforgettable dramatic intensity. 

The Package, directed by Andrew Davis in 1989 is, in many ways, a companion piece to his fabulous 1993 remake of TV’s The Fugitive with Harrison Ford in the coveted role of iconic victim, Dr. Richard Kimble.  Hackman plays U.S. Army Green Beret Master Sergeant, Johnny Gallagher, caught up in a complex mystery thriller concerning espionage, impersonation, and murder. Davis, a superb visual director, guides his star through a series of exciting set pieces and nerve-wracking sequences in which mistaken guilt and confusion mask a darker truth and sinister reality.  Hackman’s believability as a military loyalist trying to climb his way out of a tunnel of intrigue and suspense is greatly enhanced by his sincerity and persona, making “The Package” an intense, involving, and believable political thriller.

Clint Eastwood’s 1992 revisionist western drama, Unforgiven, offered Hackman a gritty co-starring role opposite his director as vengeful, corrupted Sheriff,”Little” Bill Daggett, in a jagged reality showcase in which the actor joyously chews up the scenery with deliciously evil delight.  Daggett runs his town with an iron fist and loaded gun, intoxicated with personal power and little tolerance for open dissent.  In a violent finale to his cruelty, Daggett meets his end at the hands of an anti-hero, played to perfection by Eastwood.

The 1993 thriller The Firm starred Tom Cruise as a Harvard law graduate, enticed by Avery Tolar (Hackman) to join a celebrated boutique law firm with the promise of personal fortune and perks.  Hackman’s firm operates outside the law, leaving legal and personal integrity aside, while servicing money laundering schemes with mob affiliations.  Charming, yet deadly, Hackman fights his young protagonist with threats of assassination and professional disgrace when the younger Cruise discovers that what appears to be too good to be true, in all likelihood, is.

Lawrence Kasdan’s epic re-telling of the legend of Wyatt Earp in 1994 featured Hackman as the famed Marshall’s father, Nicholas Porter Earp, in a colorful character study of familial togetherness, loyalty and honor. While at times over long and ponderous, the film is highlighted by the actor’s always remarkable reliability and studied performance.  An outstanding cast of character actors supported the film’s noble, if sometimes awkwardly misguided, aspirations.

Crimson Tide, a 1995 political thriller eerily reminiscent of The Bedford Incident, filmed thirty years earlier, in which a conservative destroyer commander played by Richard Widmark battles the convictions of a liberal reporter played by Sidney Poitier, leading to nuclear disaster.  The latter film pits Hackman against Denzel Washington aboard a nuclear submarine as tensions flair against a backdrop of Russian/American relations and a dangerous battle for control of the vessel.  Hackman remains a potent, powerful nemesis of Washington, eloquently dominating both his scenes and characterizations. Their battle of wills determines the tense outcome of their perilous combativeness, journey, and division.

Hackman expressed his desire to become a working actor at the age of eight. While studying acting, both Hackman and fellow student Dustin Hoffman were voted by their classmates as the least likely to succeed at their chosen craft.  Gene Hackman was voted “Best Actor of the Year” by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for his Oscar winning performance as “Popeye” Doyle in The French Connection in 1971 and, again in 1992, winning the Oscar for “Best Supporting Actor” in Unforgiven.

Gene Hackman died at age 95 on or about February 27th, 2025 under tragic circumstances.  We grieve for his loss … both to the arts and to the human spirit.

Pixel Scroll 2/1/25 Cleanup On Isle of the Dead Five

(1) BSFA AWARDS LONGLIST. The British Science Fiction Association today put out the longlist for the BSFA Awards (see “Second Round of 2024 BSFA Awards Nominations Begins”.)

Chris M. Barkley and Jason Sanford’s “The 2023 Hugo Awards: A Report on Censorship and Exclusion” is a nominee in the Best Short Non-Fiction category.

(2) CLARKEWORLD’S BEST. Neil Clarke has released “Clarkesworld 2024 Reader’s Poll Finalists”. The public has until February 15 to vote on the winners at Surveymonkey.

(3) LOCUS RECOMMENDED READING LIST. The 2024 Locus Recommended Reading List has been posted by Locus Online.

Voting has opened in the Locus Awards Poll. The deadline to vote is April 15.

(4) JET CRASH IN NORTHEAST PHILADELPHIA LAST EVENING. [Item by Steve Vertlieb.] CNN: “Medevac jet crashes in northeast Philadelphia neighborhood”.

Northeast Airport lies on Grant Avenue in Philadelphia. I live on Grant Avenue, some five minutes from the site of the departure of a Lear Jet medical transport plane that took off at a few minutes past six last evening with a little girl being transported home following life-saving surgery.

I was enroute to my girlfriend Shelly’s home to go out to dinner at Tiffany’s Restaurant on the Boulevard. I had considered taking Roosevelt Boulevard North down to Oxford Circle, as it may have been a faster trip but, at the last second, decided to follow Bustleton Avenue down to Castor, instead.

I arrived at Shelly’s house at a few moments past six. We drove down Levick Street to the boulevard, and turned left into the middle lanes to continue our journey. Within seconds we were dodging police vehicles, fire trucks, and ambulances trying desperately to reach Cottman Avenue and Roosevelt Boulevard amidst screaming sirens where, thirty seconds after takeoff, the Lear Medical Jet had crashed into Cottman Avenue near the boulevard, across from the Roosevelt Mall where I had grown up.

Traffic was being re-routed from virtually every direction, and I found it difficult to keep from being hit by other oncoming busses and trucks while attempting to crossover onto nearby side streets. As I passed Cottman Avenue on the boulevard, I turned to my left and saw flashing lights, emergency vehicles, and bright flames bursting into the rainy night sky.

Had I decided to travel down Roosevelt Boulevard on my way to the Oxford Circle, as I had originally planned, I might have traveled past the outside lanes of Roosevelt Boulevard, at the corner of Cottman Avenue going South, just at the moment of impact of the small jet into the congested community adjoining the fatal crash.

It took us over an hour to finally reach our dinner destination on a trip that normally might have taken fifteen or twenty minutes. We didn’t know just what had occurred mere inches from our travels North on the boulevard until we reached Tiffany’s, and were told by the staff that a plane had fatally crashed into our tightknit community. We were shaken, but glad to be alive.

Our hearts go out to our neighbors in our surrounding community, and to the families of those who perished in this terrible, nightmarish tragedy. May God Rest Their Sweet Souls.

(5) BLACK HISTORY MONTH. Axios begins Black History Month by recounting “What Octavia Butler saw on Feb. 1, 2025, three decades ago”.

Science fiction writer Octavia Butler wrote in her 1993 novel “Parable of the Sower” that Feb. 1, 2025, would be a time of fires, violence, racism, addiction, climate change, social inequality and an authoritarian “President Donner.”

  • That day is today.

The big picture: This Black History Month, which begins this year on a day of Butler’s dystopian vision, Axios will examine what the next 25 years may hold for Black Americans based on the progress in the first quarter of this century.

  • Through her fiction, Butler foresaw U.S. society’s direction and the potential for civil societies to collapse thanks to the weight of economic disparities and climate change — with blueprints for hope.
  • Afrofuturist writers today interpret Butler’s work as metaphorical warnings that appear to be coming true and a call to action….
Octavia Butler

(6) A CITY ON MARS REVIEW. [Item by Kyra.] Published in 2023.

A City On Mars, by Kelly Weinersmith and Zach Weinersmith

Nonfiction/Related

Can you make babies in space? Should corporations govern space settlements? What about space war? Are we headed for a housing crisis on the Moon’s Peaks of Eternal Light—and what happens if you’re left in the Craters of Eternal Darkness? Why do astronauts love taco sauce? Speaking of meals, what’s the legal status of space cannibalism? The Weinersmiths investigate perhaps the biggest questions humanity will ever ask itself—whether and how to become multiplanetary.

This is a clear-eyed look at the current barriers to settling space, including technological, physiological, sociological, and legal issues. This may be a must-read for anyone interested in the subject; it’s not the deepest possible examination (it is a pop-science book, after all), but it’s probably one of the broadest.

(7) GET READY FOR WASTED WEEKEND. Booktube luminary Criminolly has been hosting an event called Garbaugust, including the reading of some trashy books in August. Last year he added a mini-event, Wasted Weekend. It’s coming up again on February 15-16. Grammaticus Books wants viewers to pick their book: “I Need YOU to VOTE FOR….” But I don’t know – these are not names I associated with the word “trashy” —

Vote for your favorite trashy novel for this year’s Wasted Weekend. A reading event created by CriminOlly. Choose from a diverse selection of books by authors such as Samuel R. Delany, L. Sprague DeCamp, Terrence Dicks, Frederick Pohl, C.M. Kornbluth and of course…Lin Carter the King of Trash!

(8) JOHN ERWIN: CORA BUHLERT’S FAVORITE HE-MAN. [Item by Cora Buhlert.] John Erwin [who died December 20] was my He-Man.  For most Germans, their He-Man is either Norbert Langer, who voiced him in the long-running German audio drama series, or Sasha Hehn or Heiko Liebig, who voiced him in the German dub of the Filmation He-Man and She-Ra cartoons. 

But even though I first heard He-Man speak in the Filmation cartoon He-Man and the Masters of the Universe, I didn’t watch the German dub, but the English version via Sky Channel, when my Dad worked in the Netherlands in the 1980s. And in that cartoon, the voice of He-Man and his alter ego Prince Adam was none other than John Erwin.

If you rewatch the iconic opening narration of the cartoon – where John Erwin explains the entire premise of the series in one minute and ten seconds – you’ll notice the subtle difference between Prince Adam’s more youthful tones (Adam turned nineteen in the course of the series, while John Erwin was 47, when he first voiced him) and He-Man’s booming heroic voice.

However, John Erwin didn’t just voice He-Man and Prince Adam, but as was common with Filmation, he voiced multiple other characters in the He-Man and She-Ra cartoons as well, showcasing his amazing range. And so John Erwin lent his voice to Skeletor’s henchmen Beast-Man, Whiplash and Webstor. He was the delightfully dim-witted heroic warrior Ram-Man and the wise but grumpy dragon Granamyr as well as many one-of guest characters.

Beyond He-Man, John Erwin appeared in the western series Rawhide alongside Clint Eastwood, one of his comparatively few parts in front of the camera, and voiced Reggie in various Archie cartoons over the years. He was also the voice of Morris the Cat in the commercials for 9-Lives cat food. And if you ever needed proof that dragons are related to cats, just compare the snarky Morris to the equally snarky Granamyr.

Voice actors are unseen and often unsung. This is unfair, because their talent is what brings cartoon characters to life and turns them into icons. John Erwin’s voice played a big part in turning the Filmation He-Man cartoon into the runaway success that it was and in turning He-Man into the iconic hero he became.      

(9) TODAY’S BIRTHDAY.

[Written by Paul Weimer.]

February 1, 1954Bill Mumy, 71.

By Paul Weimer: Bill Mumy’s intersection with my genre show watching boils down to three properties, and they are the three ones that you think they are.  I first saw him as the mutant overpowered psychic child Anthony in one of the most terrifying Twilight Zone episodes of all time, “It’s a Good Life”. What happens when a young boy develops psychic powers and takes control of the town. Nothing good…I mean, no wait, Anthony, I mean, it’s a good life. I swear, it’s a good life.  The whole idea that he cuts off the town from the rest of the universe is terrifying in and of itself, isn’t it? You can’t escape him, you can’t escape his power.   Mumy also appears in a few other Twilight Zone episodes in various roles, but they are nothing compared to the power and centrality of his performance in “It’s a Good Life”

His role as Will Robinson in Lost in Space couldn’t be any different. I stumbled across episodes of Lost in Space in reruns not long after seeing the Twilight Zone episode. As the naive, but well-meaning youngest child of the Robinson family, Will Robinson couldn’t be any different than the psychic Anthony. Whether with Robbie, or Dr. Smith (and it seemed he spent more time with either of them than the rest of his family), he showed the childlike wonder of being on alien planets.  I was delighted he had a small role in the recent remake of Lost in Space, too, as the “real” Zachary Smith. (He gets his identity stolen by Parker Posey’s character). That was a neat bit of turnaround, and not at all stunt casting. 

The other genre work I associate Mumy with is, of course, Babylon 5, and Lennier. As the assistant to Delenn, he stands with Vir (Stephen Furst) as one of the two maintained underlings in the diplomatic corps. While Vir feels like an everyman (as the Centauri as, outwardly very much human), Lennier could show, on occasion, through Mumy’s acting, just how alien and not-human the Minbari were. He was meek, mild and deferential…until he needed not to be, and then could be all too inhumanly dangerous and determined. And given that this story is ultimately a tragedy, Lennier’s story is one that hits me in the feels, from start to finish. Such great acting. I remember when watching “Midnight on the Firing Line” and seeing his name in the credits and wondering what the child actor had become. He had become a fine adult actor, that’s what. 

Happy birthday!

Bill Mumy

(10) COMICS SECTION.

(11) THE TEST OF TIME. The Unofficial Hugo Book Club Blog analyzes the Best Dramatic Hugo finalists of 1984 as part of their continuing series: “Big Worldcon Is Watching (Hugo Cinema 1984)”.

L.A. Con II, the 42nd Worldcon, was the largest World Science Fiction Convention of all time up to that point, with more than 8,000 fans in attendance (to this day, only the 2023 Worldcon in Chengdu, China has eclipsed that number). Science fiction cinema was bigger than ever. The Hugo Awards were bigger than ever. But in 1984, the Hugo for Best Dramatic Presentation was still considered a second-tier award.

“We will now proceed with the minor awards: Best Dramatic Presentation,” Toastmaster Robert Bloch quipped as he introduced the nominees: Bradbury adaptation Something Wicked This Way Comes, special effects maestro Douglas Trumbull’s Brainstorm, early hacking movie Wargames, blockbuster Return of the Jedi, and Oscar Best Picture contender The Right Stuff.

It’s an uneven shortlist that reveals both a tension between the populism and the insularity to which the award was often prone….

(12) STAND BY FOR THE END OF THE WORLD. “OpenAI Strikes Deal With US Government to Use Its AI for Nuclear Weapon Security”Futurism knows why this sounds familiar.

Remember the plot to the 1984 sci-fi blockbuster “The Terminator”?

“There was a nuclear war,” a character explains. “Defense network computers. New… powerful… hooked into everything, trusted to run it all. They say it got smart, a new order of intelligence. Then it saw all people as a threat, not just the ones on the other side. Decided our fate in a microsecond: extermination.”

It seems like either the execs at OpenAI have never seen it or they’re working overtime to make that premise a reality.

Don’t believe us? OpenAI has announced that the US National Laboratories will use its deeply flawed AI models to help with a “comprehensive program in nuclear security.”

As CNBC reports, up to 15,000 scientists working at the institutions will get access to OpenAI’s latest o1 series of AI models — the ones that Chinese startup DeepSeek embarrassed on the world stage earlier this month.

According to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, who announced the partnership at an event in Washington, DC, the tech will be “focused on reducing the risk of nuclear war and securing nuclear materials and weapons worldwide,” as quoted by CNBC.

If any alarm bells are ringing by this point, you’re not alone. We’ve seen plenty of instances of OpenAI’s AI models leaking sensitive user data and hallucinating false claims with abandon….

(13) THIEVES LIKE US. Meanwhile, OpenAI apparently can’t keep its own work secure, earning a very loud raspberry from Guardian columnist Marina Hyde: “Oh, I’m sorry, tech bros – did DeepSeek copy your work? I can hardly imagine your distress”.

I once saw an episode of America’s Dumbest Criminals where a man called the cops to report his car stolen, only for it to turn out he’d stolen it from someone else in the first place. I couldn’t help thinking of him this week while watching OpenAI’s Sam Altman wet his pants about the fact that a Chinese hedge fund might have made unauthorised use of his own chatbot models, including ChatGPT, to train its new little side project. This is the cheaper, more open, extremely share-price-slashing DeepSeek.

As news of DeepSeek played havoc with the tech stock market, OpenAI pressed its hanky to its nose and released a statement: “We are aware of and reviewing indications that DeepSeek may have inappropriately distilled our models, and will share information as we know more,” this ran….

…So, to put it another way … wait, Sam – you’re not telling us that the Chinese hedge fund crawled all over your IP without asking and took it for themselves? Oh my God, IMAGINE?! You must feel used and abused. Financially violated. Like all your years of creativity were just grist to some other bastard’s mill. Like a host organism. Like a schmuck. Like Earth’s most screamingly preposterous hypocrite….

(14) SUPERHAMLET. From Christopher Reeve’s appearance on The Muppet Show long ago: “Brush Up Your Shakespeare”.

(15) VIDEO OF THE DAY. [Item by SF Concatenation’s Jonathan Cowie.] Moid Moidelhoff  over at Media Death Cult considers the sense of place as a principal character in some SF/F… “When Location is the Main Character”.

[Thanks to Mike Kennedy, Andrew Porter, John King Tarpinian, Olav Rokne, Mark Roth-Whitworth, Chris Barkley, Cat Eldridge, SF Concatenation’s Jonathan Cowie, Steven French, Kathy Sullivan, and Teddy Harvia for some of these stories. Title credit belongs to File 770 contributing editor of the day Daniel Dern.]

Brian De Palma: Dressed To Thrill

Brian De Palma

By Steve Vertlieb: The irony of Brian DePalma’s seeming obsession with mayhem and graphic bloodletting is that the director is essentially a humanist. Throughout his work on the screen, there is a thread of humanity in search of acceptance. Unlike the Hitchcockian twists of plot with which his work has most frequently been compared, DePalma’s heroes and heroines are essentially lost and lonely victims of their own sordid self-destructiveness.

In DePalma’s nightmare world, violence and brutality are merely the window-dressing on a canvas of frustration and bitterness. The landscape of his vision perversely masks the tragic isolation of small, lonely people willingly imprisoned within the boundaries of their own psychological exile. Misfits and outcasts, DePalma’s characters watch life from the sidelines, experiencing joy only in the limited reality of those whose perception and awareness are themselves blighted and unimaginative.

These hapless marionettes struggle exhaustively to free themselves from the invisible bonds that tie them to irreversible tragedy. In the agony of their loneliness, they strike out passionately, inflicting a mirror image of their own grief upon whomever they perceive as causing their containment. They are incapable of penetrating the outer wall of their prison or of comprehending the nature of the puppeteer whose whims and fancies manipulate the strings to which they are irrevocably tied. For it is the director whose prejudicial conceptions of mediocre existence guide their fate to its ultimate and tragic conclusion. It is DePalma’s own sense of hopelessness and human suffering that sadly dooms the characters of his design.

For his emergence into the suspense/horror genre, DePalma chose as the vehicle a bizarre tale of sibling rivalry entitled Sisters. Like Hitchcock, DePalma chose the imaginatively visual theater of the fanciful with which to perfect his creative yearnings. Working within the limitless confines of a genre whose very nature encouraged the freedom of creative experimentation, DePalma began to explore the terrain of his own developing artistic maturity. In seeking to enhance his style and storytelling technique, he chose the most expressive of styles, the media offering the most exciting challenges to a young, gifted film stylist.

Released through American International Pictures in 1973, Sisters concerns the strange relationship of Danielle and Dominique, twin sisters whose disturbing affinity for one another seems to surpass normal familial affection. The film begins as Danielle, a French-Canadian model, is observed disrobing by Phillip Woode, a young newspaperman. As the action stops and lurid titles flash upon the screen, it immediately becomes apparent that we are watching a television game show entitled “Peeping Toms” in which the contestants are judged by the degree of their voyeurism. Woode (Lisle Wilson) invites Danielle to dinner after the show. During dinner they are disturbed by Emil Breton (Bill Finley) whom Danielle identifies as her former husband.

Danielle invites Woode back to her apartment where they make love. In the morning, Phillip awakens to the sound of offscreen voices arguing in French. Dominique has visited her sister on the pair’s birthday but is apparently angered over the appear ance of an intruder in Danielle’s bed. Danielle sends Phillip out on an errand to renew her medicine which is running low. While on his errand, Phillip decides to make peace between the twins by buying a birthday cake. Returning to the apartment, Phillip approaches the sleeping body of a girl he presumes to be his lover. Reaching for the knife on the cake plate, the girl plunges the blade into Phillip’s body, stabbing him repeatedly until the reporter’s lifeless form collapses on the floor.

The murder is witnessed by Grace Collier (Jennifer Salt), another reporter whose apartment overlooks Danielle’s. When Danielle returns to the apartment, she realizes that Dominique has murdered her lover in a jealous rage. With Emil, who has now arrived at the scene, the pair attempts to hide the body of the slain journalist and protect the missing sister.

In the classic Hitchcock mold, Grace tries to convince the police that she has witnessed a murder. Since Grace has authored a series of articles on the police entitled “Why we call them pigs,” however, the officers investigating the case are rather reluctant to cooperate with her. It remains for the reporter to hire a private investigator (Charles Durning) who, with the determined witness, sets out to unravel the mystery. They discover that Danielle and Dominique were celebrated Siamese twins, separated as children. According to a Life magazine journalist who covered their story, however, Dominique died during the fateful operation, and only Danielle survived. It soon becomes clear that like Norman Bates in Hitchcock’s Psycho, Danielle Breton conceals a split personality, harboring an unbearable sense of guilt for the death of her sister and assuming both roles, thus negating the death. When Phillip entered Danielle’s life, Dominique flew into a jealous rage. In the battle for affection between the two struggling personalities, Dominique emerged the winner, and Phillip was made to pay a handsome price for his interference.

Danielle is a murderess, certainly, but, as played by Margot Kidder, a gifted and beautiful actress, she is a tragic doomed heroine. Danielle believes that her sister survived the operation. There is a horrible nobility in the efforts of the surviving sister to protect her sibling, not realizing that it is she herself who has committed a gruesome murder. Danielle is a helpless innocent, struggling valiantly to retain a sense of human dignity but devoured unknowingly by forces wholly beyond her awareness or control. Danielle is doomed from the start. She fights in the only world her consciousness will permit, but it is that very limited consciousness which  will lead to her eventual demise.

Gaston Leroux’s The Phantom of the Opera was to provide the inspiration for Brian DePalma’s next work. Phantom of the Paradise, released by Twentieth Century-Fox in 1974, was a tragicornic satire rooted in the hereditary insanity of both horror films and rock and roll. Phantom of the Paradise is a mad, manic exercise in black comedy highlighted by Paul Williams’s demonic performance as the satanic dwarf Swan, a diabolical munchkin whose recording empire was derived when “He sold his soul for rock and roll.”

William Finley (Emil Breton in Sisters) is the sensitive young rock composer whose cantata is first coveted, then stolen, by the evil rock entrepreneur. Swan adopts the music of the young composer, Winslow Leach, as his own and plans to premiere the work at the opening of his new theater, The Paradise. Following. the story line of the Claude Rains (1943) and Herbert Lom (1962) versions of the classic horror tale, Leach invades the sanctuary of the evil impresario in order to retrieve his missing manuscript. Within the walls of Swan’s recording plant, Winslow tries to sabotage the machinery but instead finds his head caught in a record-pressing machine and horribly disfigured. This is the ultimate irony. The budding composer sees not his record pressed, but his head.

Adding insult to injury, Leach is shot by a security guard, escapes, but is presumed by all to be dead. Fate leads, however, to the new Paradise Theatre where the spectral presence of a phantom continues to sabotage plans for a gala rock opening. From a vantage point, hidden high in the rafters of the theater, Winslow observes the auditions for the premiere of Swan’s stolen rock cantata. The composer is taken with the lovely voice and gentle beauty of one of the singers, Phoenix (Jessica Harper), and conspires to blackmail Swan into casting the girl in the lead performance. Winslow worships Phoenix from afar, guiding her career anonymously and falling ever more deeply in love with her. Swan’s sadism continues unabated as he seduces Phoenix, knowing full well that Winslow is observing the pair through a rooftop skylight. His body and emotions terribly scarred, part of a world of ugliness whose jagged boundaries can never touch the sweet innocence of the girl he loves, Winslow screams in terrible anguish at the betrayal of love and beauty beneath the window. The awful fury of a raging storm blends its anguish with the primal agony of the captive phantom, tied by morbid fascination to endure his grief, unable to look away from a sight that mocks his soul.

Although Phantom of the Paradise is a brilliant, fiendishly funny satirical gem, there are moments of great poignancy. Phantom is comedy, to be sure, but despite its moments of hilarity, William Finley’s characterization of the beleaguered composer Winslow Leach falls well within the guidelines of DePalma’s doomed protagonist. Leach never has a chance to achieve the richness of life he quietly desires. Fame and financial success are robbed from him early in the scenario. Physical well—being is denied him when he loses his teeth during imprisonment inside the walls of a penitentiary, courtesy of the malevolent Swan. Finally, the love and tenderness of the woman he worships are forever denied him because of his ghastly appearance. Yes, even his once-handsome features have been decayed and corrupted by the clutches of a jaws-like record press intent on putting wax into his ears, rather than taking it out. Is it any wonder that Leach, the sensitive, artistic soul, becomes Leach, the revenge-thirsty Phantom of the Paradise?

The characters who populate DePalma’s scenarios are each, in their own way, smalltime losers. Their universe is a bleak, dreary ghetto wherein the inhabitants never seem to rise above the stench of despair. Survival is everything, and yet it seems the rarest commodity of all.

Survival in motion pictures may also have seemed a rather rare commodity to a young, struggling director searching for his roots. Sisters in 1973 was designed by its director as a deliberate imitation of the acknowledged master of suspense, Alfred Hitchcock, replete with all of Hitchcock’s traditional trappings, including a moody, bizarre musical score by Bernard Herrmann. If Sisters was a trifle rough around the edges, an imperfect salute from a technician largely inexperienced in the genre, then Obsession in I976 was a finely honed tribute from one artist to another.

In his attempt to recreate the experience of Hitchcock’s masterpiece Vertigo (Paramount, 1958), DePalma was inspired to create his own masterwork. Greatness rarely begets anything other than flattering imitations. Obsession was, however, an entirely different matter, for with this strange, haunting film, Brian DePalma achieved his own distinctly original claim to cinema posterity. With its painful, romantic imagery so delicately painted by Vilmos Zsigmond’s classical cinematography, its brilliant and complex screenplay composed by the powerful hand of writer Paul Schrader, its exquisitely ethereal, nearly overpoweringly beautiful musical score by Bernard Herrmann, the rnost provocatively gifted composer of Twentieth-century dramatic scoring, and the assured, spell-binding direction of an astonishingly talented director, Brian DePalma, Obsession seemed to equal the acclaimed magical mystery of the film it once aspired to impersonate.

Released through Columbia Pictures, Obsession weaves an intricate, fascinating tale of kidnapping, revenge, and obsessive love. On the tenth anniversary of their marriage, Michael and Elizabeth Courtland host a celebration attended by friends and associates. At evening’s end, the happy couple prepares to retire. Elizabeth leaves Michael briefly to check on their nine-year-old daughter Amy. When she fails to return, Michael (Cliff Robertson) goes searching for her and finds a note pinned to the bed which reads: “Do not call police. Be at home with $500,000 cash tomorrow if you want wife and daughter returned alive.” Turning to his partner Robert LaSalle (]ohn Lithgow) for help, Courtland raises the money but, despite the warning, notifies the police. The kidnappers are located, and a frantic chase by car ensues. In the pursuit, the escaping vehicle is destroyed, killing both Elizabeth Courtland and young Amy.

Years pass, and Michael Courtland, despite a halfhearted attempt at retaining his business affiliations, remains a broken man living in the ominous shadow of his tragic past. On a business trip with his partner to Florence, Italy, Courtland is encouraged to visit the legendary Church of San Miniato. There he observes a young woman restoring a priceless painting. As he catches sight of her, the world seems to stop, for she is the very image of his beloved Elizabeth.

Michael becomes obsessed and enchanted with the wonder of his second chance. He must win the love of his reincarnated wife, Sandra Portinari (Genevieve Bujold in both roles), and take her to their New Orleans home once again. Miraculously she agrees to marry him and returns to the home he shared with Elizabeth.

Michael is reborn. The scars and the awful pain disappear seemingly overnight along with the torturous deprivation that turned a loving, fulfilled human being into an emotionless shell. Shadows soon form, however, as Sandra herself feels a growing obsession for the portrait, clothing, and possessions of the dead Elizabeth. The young girl seems to lose herself in the identity of Courtland’s first wife. The pattern reaches its deadly and inevitable conclusion when, on the eve of their impending marriage, Michael searches the house for her, only to find the same terrible, familiar message pinned to the bed . . . “Do not call police. Be at home with $500,000 cash tomorrow if you want wife and daughter returned alive.”

Is it possible? Is he insane, or has the horrible scenario begun again? Frantic, out of his mind, Michael drives to the home of Robert LaSalle, awakening his partner and demanding a loan of another $500,000 in order to save Elizabeth/Sandra again. LaSalle? is in no mood to pamper Michael. Savagely, he taunts Courtland with his refusal, deliberately  driving him to the very brink of insanity. It had all been a plot, in fact, to drive him insane. In Italy, LaSalle had recruited Sandra because of her startling resemblance to Elizabeth. Together, they had conspired to drive Michael mad and share his wealth. Enraged, Courtland murders LaSalle and then drives to the airport to take his revenge on Sandra who, he learns, is returning to Rome that night.

A shocker? Yes, certainly, but DePalma has held his greatest surprise, his master card, for the last. On the plane, Sandra sits alone while her own terrible memories come flooding back to her, as she recalls the mother and child being separated by the kidnappers. She remembers the awful explosion as Elizabeth Courtland is killed in the burning wreckage of the car, and herself, a terrified child, being led away to the airport by her “Uncle Robert” to be put on a plane bound for Rome. “Where’s my daddy?” young Amy Courtland cries. “Your daddy doesn’t want you anymore,” responds Robert LaSalle, himself grief-stricken and afraid of exposure. LaSalle had, in fact, engineered the kidnapping and ransoming of his partner’s wife and daughter. It was a plot to extort his partner, but the plan went awry. Elizabeth was never supposed to die. That hadn’t been part of the plan. After the accident, LaSalle had to cover his involvement. He couldn’t kill the child, so he packed her off to Rome, paid for her upbringing by an Italian family, and filled her young mind with hatred for her father.

The ploy worked. Sandra/Amy grew up despising her father. She still hated the father who had abandoned her, didn’t she? Didn’t she? But no. She’d come to love him during their brief reunion. He was, after all, her father. Consumed by remorse, Sandra steals into the rest room on the airplane and cuts her wrists.

In perhaps the film’s greatest moments, the airplane returns to New Orleans and a waiting Michael Courtland. Sandra has barely survived her attempted suicide and is being rushed in a wheelchair to the hospital. Michael, seeing the woman in the wheelchair approaching,‘ conceals the gun in his coat and walks toward her. Sandra awakens from her depression as she sees her father coming toward her. For Amy, it is a second chance to reclaim the love of her lost parent. For Michael, it is a second chance to kill the woman who deceived him. Amy leaves her wheelchair and races toward her father, arms outstretched, crying uncontrollably. Michael races too, but with revenge on his mind. Will he kill her? Will Amy have a chance to tell him who she really is, or will Michael lose his beloved daughter a second time? As she reaches his arms, they embrace and Michael points the gun at her head. He is about to pull the trigger when Amy cries out “DADDY!” Bewildered’, tears filling his eyes, Michael Courtland sees his daughter in his arms. Astonished, he holds her and says questioningly, “Baby?” It is a supreme moment of excrutiating drama, nearly unbearable in its intensity.

Courtland has suffered too much pain. DePalma, in his humanity, has allowed his creation to recapture his soul in a climax as daring and suspenseful as any cinematic moment ever committed to film. Recalling the lesson of the master, Alfred Hitchcock, that you musn’t lead an audience on and then cheat them, DePalma was able to wrench every ounce of suspense from his climactic reunion and still reward his audience with a fully satisfying. Emotional release. Without that all-important escape valve, Obsession might have lapsed into pointless cynicism and bitterness, but the hopeful, humanistic aspect of Brian DePalma’s cinema colored its conclusion, and Obsession is a far more powerful exercise because of it. The final imagery of father and daughter, forever lost then found, locked in a slow-motion dance of emotional intensity, is the most haunting and stunningly brilliant sequence in the complex cinema of this paradoxical director.

Perhaps Brian DePalma’s most tragic creation was the hopelessly sheltered, lonely high-school girl named Carrie. Based on the novel by Stephen King and released through United Artists in 1976, Carrie starred Sissy Spacek as the Cinderella whose magic wand concealed deadly telekinetic powers. Spacek shone as the fragile teenager, innocently unaware of her blossoming sensuality and savagely tormented by her classmates. This was truly a modern parable, an allegorical shocker based upon the classic story of Cinderella, replete with William Katt as the handsome prince, Piper Laurie as the wicked stepmother, and Betty Buckley as the kindly, understanding fairy godmother. Taunted by her peers, Carrie is magically transformed into the loveliest girl at school by a sympathetic teacher and escorted to the prom by the most popular boy on campus.

This is not Walt Disney, however, but Brian DePalma. Unlike the charmed and charming heroine of the fabled fairy tale, DePalma’s doomed Cinderella remains at the ball beyond the hour of twelve and must pay a terrible price. Happiness turns to horror as the wicked rivals drench Carrie in a pool of pig’s blood and crush the skull of her handsome Prince Charming. Innocence dies irretrievably, replacing youthful radiance with a newly awakened psychic power destined to decimate not only the wicked stepmother and her venomous “sisters” but Carrie’s fairy godmother and the entire magical kingdom as well. The school prom ends abruptly as blind hatred seizes Carrie, exacting a frightening payment from those who jealously coveted her crown. Carrie’s momentary castle, the high-school gymnasium, is consumed in a spectacular fire, claiming the lives of all who conspired to deprive her of her first chance for happiness.

Sissy Spacek is irresistibly innocent as Carrie White, a childlike waif with huge, alluring eyes and a guileless charm that radiates spiritual warmth and profound sensuality. She is a lovely, exquisite creature waltzing through an entrancing celluloid fantasy. It is this wide—eyed sense of wonder that the gifted young actress brings to the difficult role of the disturbed teenager.

Carrie is doomed by the awakening seed of her own pubescent self-discovery. As a troubled, friendless adolescent, she might safely have suffered in the shadows of peripheral life, assuming a benign invisibility. Forced into the dangerous arena of conspicuous social involvement, however, her peculiar vulnerability sets the ominous stage for her emotional assassination. DePalma’s sensibilities are obviously attuned to Carrie’s pathetic plight. Up until the predictable bloodbath that concludes the Stephen King story, Carrie is an unforgettable essay on teen-age cruelty and loneliness, a deeply sensitive commentary on societal alienation. The director, despite his personal empathy for Carrie, is forced to focus a bitterly realistic eye upon the fable. Fate, after all, had determined the course and brevity of her unusual life long ago. Carrie was always alone, always different. A well-ordered, structured society has little tolerance for those born outside its traditional mold. Carrie never would have fit in. She was unique. Therefore, she had to die.

Recharging his creative energies, DePalma would allow two years to elapse before unveiling his next motion picture, The Fury, released by Twentieth Century-Fox in 1978. Remarkably similar in tone and treatment to the earlier Carrie, The Fury concerns the efforts of an ex-government agent to rescue his son from the clutches of a mysterious central intelligence agency bent on controlling the boy’s bizarre psychic abilities. Once again, a character’s fate is seemingly predetermined by an accident of birth and powers wholly beyond his understanding or control.

Peter, the boy’s father (Kirk Douglas), enlists the aid of a young girl with comparable psychic talents, and together they search for the captive youth. Amy Irving, the enchanting, sensitive young actress who played the single survivor of Carrie White’s wrath in the earlier film, portrays Peter’s confederate, Gillian, an impressionable psychic whose ominous visions portend impending tragedy. 

It is difficult to distinguish between traditional conceptions of good and evil in The Fury. John Cassavetes as Childress, the determined American agent, is essentially amoral, a governmental clone unable to differentiate between right and wrong and lacking the basic ability to comprehend the difference. He walks somnambulistically through his assignments, neither knowing nor caring that he has become a corruption of the values he was sworn to protect.

Tradition has somehow undergone an ugly metamorphosis. Strict morality has polluted our concept of respect for authority and transformed it into a Hitlerian perversity. Representations of institutional justice have corroded conscience into amoral ambiguity. The federal agent we’ve been conditioned to admire has become a robot, a shallow descendant of the Third Reich obediently implementing the cruelest of directives.

The kindly research director at the psychic institute (Charles Durning) betrays his scholarly integrity by acting in frightened complicity with the federal agency. Dr. McKeever is a modern Caligari, a Kafkaesque caricature simply carrying out the will of the state. Tradition and trust have vanished quietly, frighteningly, without revolution or rebellion. DePalma has murdered our most precious illusions of natural order. In this dark society, we are the villains.

Despite Peter’s heroic effort to save his son, it becomes painfully apparent that it is an exercise in futility. It is too late. The boy (Andrew Stevens) has endured too much ugliness to have survived unscathed. The evil effect of his captivity has warped his fragile mind, expunging his conscience of all responsibility. Corrupted by his environment, he undergoes a terrible transformation. His powers channeled into negative energy, Robin becomes a frightening superbeing—a monster.

Kirk Douglas, as the concerned father, delivers his most restrained and intelligent performance in years. Accompanied by the brooding brilliance of John Williams’s masterful score, Peter and his only child are swept beyond salvation, engulfed by merciless tides of evil, in all-consuming intensity. Once again, the unsuspecting have lost their fight for survival in a game whose cards were already stacked against them.

In Dressed to Kill (Filmways, 1980) DePalma focused upon another kind of human frailty–sexual excess borne of a repressive society. Kate Miller (Angie Dickinson) is starved for affection, seeking male companionship in order to satisfy her needs. Liz Blake (Nancy Allen) is, on the other hand, a prostitute, reimbursed handsomely for her ability to satisfy the needs of her clientele. At either end of the spectrum, the judgments imposed by society on its inhabitants have created the climate into which both women were born.

Sexual yearnings, however normal, however human, are denied by vast segments of society intent on ignoring or invalidating their natural instincts and imposing their values on the remainder of an already confused species. The search for personal identity or the fear of what that search might reveal has, historically, negated our sexual birthright. “Sin” became an easy, simplistic catchphrase for burying our genitals under the sands of fear and ignorance. We protest too much, as someone once said, creating the seeds of emotional conflict and pain.

When pressure beneath the earth’s crust has been contained and suppressed for too long, it builds to a terrible climax and explodes. We are all products of this earthly terrain. Like the smoldering rock beneath the surface, the natural inclinations of human beings cannot be denied. When the pressure becomes too intense, people erupt as well.

Angie Dickinson

Kate Miller’s pathetic sexual escapades, like a deadly vacuum, pull her into a black, bottomless well from which there is no escape. In a handsome sequence apparently modeled from the museum interlude in Hitchcock’s Vertigo, Kate plays a  highly sexual game of cat and mouse with a patron of something more than the arts. Canvassing the canvases at New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, her gaze lingers hungrily on the sight of an attractive man. Sensing that he is being appraised, the man turns to acknowledge the bidder. Discovered, Kate turns self-consciously, walking slowly, deliberately through a maze of twisting corridors, aware that she is being pursued and luring her admirer confidently through his moves. Tiring of the game, the mouse changes the rules. The chase is reversed, and now Kate retraces her steps, drawn to the irresistible bait through the same mad maze.

The scene is charged with sexual tension as the camera dances through the ever-winding corridors, frantically surveying every corner for evidence of the manipulative Mouse Who Would Be Cat. Kate’s heavy breathing intensifies, dominating the soundtrack with a desperate urgency. The entire sequence is literally orgasmic, an electrifying display of filmic artistry in which the mating of sight. and sound combines to create the illusion of passionate sexual foreplay without the luxury of the slightest physical contact. The tension abates momentarily as Kate loses the prey, as well as her glove. Frustrated, she walks down the steps of the museum, only to be greeted by the sight of the missing glove dangling seductively from the open window of a parked taxi. The scene reaches its climax as she reaches for the glove and is pulled into the cab by the cat, joyously exacting his pound of flesh on the back seat. Kate’s sexual abandon is complete. Her screams of ecstatic excitation are engulfed in waves of frenzied sound as the cab comes to a screeching halt in front of the man’s apartment.

The moment has been consummated, but the moment is gone. Now Kate must pay a horrible price for her altogether human indiscretion. Leaving the apartment in the middle of the being exposed, she is confronted by a crazy woman on the elevator, wielding a straight edged razor, and hacked to death in a nightmarish scene of “moral” retribution. Kate never had a chance of surviving her weakness, for this was the ultimate betrayal of trust. The murderess was in fact Dr. Elliott (Michael Caine), her own psychiatrist who, like Norman Bates in Hitchcock’s Psycho, led a double existence as a man and a woman. Elliott’s masculine self was attracted to Kate. When his own longing for her became too strong, his feminine ego took control and, in a jealous rage, killed the girl. Despite her struggle to regain a foothold in the course and meaning of her destiny, Kate was a loser, and in this, the final game, the price was her life.

Michael Caine

With Blow Out (Filmways, 1981), Brian DePaln1a has reached a new level of artistic maturity. Filmed in its entirety in Philadelphia, this brooding, disturbing film tells the deceptively simple story of a politician and his female escort whose car races off a dark road, plunging its occupants into the murky waters of the Wissahickon Creek.

Written and directed by DePalma, the film is a darkly successful thriller about the underbelly of political intrigue out of control within the normally safe boundaries of civilized society. Utilizing Hitchcock’s familiar scenario of an ordinary man caught up in extraordinary circumstances, the director uses john Travolta’s boyish innocence as the unwitting bait that lures a crazed assassin from out of the shadows. Travolta, in perhaps the most understated performance of his career, seems content to surrender his notoriety to DePalma’s masterful manipulation of people, places, and events.

Jack (Travolta), a sound man for a small motion picture company, inadvertently records the sound of the politician’s tires blowing out just before the fatal accident. Did they blow out, however, or were they blown out by rifle fire? Sally (Nancy Allen) is the girl whose life and reputation are savagely compromised by the accident. Rescued from a watery grave by the technician, she wants only to fade into the background and escape the inevitable lurid publicity. The allusions to Senator Kennedy and his celebrated accident are obvious, except that in a novel twist it is the girl who survives the crash and not the politician.

A massive cover-up is under way when it becomes apparent that ]ack’s recording can prove that the “accident” was an act of political assassination. Since the public is unaware of either the girl or the murder, the pair must be silenced permanently. Burke, the killer (John Lithgow), is given the assignment of tying up the loose ends. Like Childress in The Fury, Burke is a machine devoid of values or compassion. He understands only that he has left a job incomplete and that he must finish his work.

Vilmos Zsigmond’s shattering cinematography succeeds in turning Philadelphia into an eerie, surrealist nightmare world in which every darkened corner seems to verge on the brink of exploding into violence. The City of Brotherly Love is presented in an astonishing panorama of stark and menacing set pieces that seem to recall Hollywood’s memorable cinema noir period of the 1940s in which the city preyed upon its captives.

De Palma and Travolta

Jack and Sally are captives within the walls that keep them prisoners. They struggle valiantly to survive, but their fate relentlessly succeeds in tracking them down. Along the way, however, DePalma infuses the picture with haunting, unforgettable moments of directorial brilliance. The city’s famous 30th Street train station is transformed into a dangerous den of cold and menacing mechanization, gazing with cyclopean eyes at the tiny, fragile form of a vulnerable young woman being stalked by the calculating killer. A parade celebrating long years of independence and liberty turns into a nightmare as Jack’s jeep races through congested streets in an effort to catch the subway train beneath his wheels and prevent Sally’s death. In a stunning tour de force of expert cinematography and direction, Zsigmond and DePalma capture the sequence from high above the city, looking down through the doors of a helicopter as Jack leads the police on a thrilling chase through the very grounds of City Hall courtyard. The daring stunt climaxes as the jeep crashes through the huge display windows of Wanamaker’s department store. Finally, in the most dazzling sequence of the film, Jack searches through the rubble of his ransacked studio in order to find the incriminating tape containing the murderous blowout. The camera surveys the room in a dizzying, continuous, circular panning shot, observing the destruction detached, without comment, as Jack floats in and out of camera range. It is a superb achievement.

Always a moralist, DePalma completes his essay in a profoundly moving finale that will haunt filmgoers for years to come. The bitter irony of the director’s vision is that life leaves no one unscathed . . . that the users are themselves finally used up.

At the last, Burke lures the innocent Sally away from the crushing crowds continuing their celebration into evening. Recovered, Jack tries desperately to work his way through the parade and find the killer before it is too late. Carrying his recording equipment, he eavesdrops once more on the sounds of a murder in progress. Grief-stricken, unable to locate the source of Sally’s terrible screams, Jack overhears the death agony of his lover.

Early in the picture, in a comedic interlude, Jack tries fruitlessly to simulate a convincing death scream from a series of hopelessly inept actresses to add to the soundtrack of a horror film. Now, in the final devastating moments of Blow Out, DePalma adds the last pathetic touch. Jack, ever the professional technician, uses the recording of Sally’s final, agonized screams to fill in the soundtrack of his picture. In this ironic symbolism, it becomes clear that DePalma has created a work of profound and enduring importance, a unique and wholly original film peculiar to his own developing style as a creative filmmaker.

Yet, Brian DePalma is essentially a purist, and the spectacular journey from opening credits to end titles is pure cinema, exciting and exhilarating. Blow Out is a major work from one of this country’s most shamefully underrated film directors. It’s time that the rating changed. A complex and serious talent, De Palrna’s ever-emerging flair for combining exuberant directorial genius with sober, provocative writing has already earned him a place of importance in modern cinema. In whatever guise, however, serious or sardonic, DePalma is always dressed to thrill.

[Appeared originally in George Stover’s CINEMACABRE Magazine in 1982.]

Steve Vertlieb Review: Robert Eggers’ Nosferatu

Steve Vertlieb at the theater.

By Steve Vertlieb: Robert Eggers’ lavish remake of Nosferatu is a love letter from Hell, a provocative, profoundly disturbing adult horror masterpiece.  Infusing elements from Bram Stoker’s literary classic, Dracula, with imagery from F.W. Murnau’s original 1922 cinematic nightmare, as well as Francis Ford Coppola’s brooding interpretation of Bram Stoker’s Dracula, this latest re-telling of the infamous fantasy brings together fabled folklore and deeply troubling Germanic mythology to form a masterful visual presentation steeped in spectacular gothic landscapes, and sumptuous sensuality. Tales told over haunted centuries in hushed whispers ‘neath European campfires enshrouded in darkness.  Tales of depravity and bestiality hovering menacingly within the darkest corners of ancient fears and imagination. These grim fairy tales divide the invisible lines of separation between rationality and insanity for, despite our pretense of civilized and mannered society, a frightening undercurrent of disruption and horror lies just beneath the surface of imagination.  What lies waiting in darkness, beyond our fragile grasp of the pretense of reality, may ultimately drown us beyond redemption in a sea of madness and depravity.

It is our lost adolescent frailty, and fear of things that “go bump in the night” that forge the fragile bonds of smug maturity, and refusal to return to the mythology of childhood dreams and nightmares. Within the conflicted spectrum of adult conceit lies the tantalizing fascination with both cinematic and fictional horror, historically consuming our senses, in the often delusional belief that once we leave the theater and turn the lights back on, that our lives will return safely and securely to a world of wholesome normality.  This has been the basis of our lifelong fascination with horror.  To stick our toes into the darkness for a fleeting moment, and then retreat quickly into the reassuring, if deceptive, light of comfort and warmth, is somehow reassuring. It is an affirmation of life and security, a protection from the ancient forces of darkness that momentarily threaten our semblance of reality. It is our symbolic crucifix to ward off evil.

Nosferatu, written and directed by Robert Eggers, is a frightening reincarnation of the vampire legend.  A larger than death interpretation of Stoker’s Dracula, Eggers cinematic fairy tale is a traumatic descent into demonic possession, filmed in grand guignol style and imagery, with devotional stylistic tributes to both Charles Dickens and L. Frank Baum. 

Based upon F.W. Murnau’s unauthorized variation of Bram Stoker’s Dracula (UFA, 1922), this newest and perhaps definitive reincarnation of the original silent classic is a horrifying realization of our deepest, most troubling nightmares.  The tale is as old as time. An innocent young man is sent by his firm to the wild, untamed mountains of Transylvania to arrange for the purchase of a decaying castle in England and passage by ship to London by a mysterious count whose presence in his native land is both feared and abhorred by the simple peasantry surrounding his property.  Count Orlok is a scourge upon the land, a loathsome creature of the night whose nocturnal wanderings have infected the local village with dread.  Infants have gone missing, while young, chaste women have been attacked and savaged. Orlok’s command of ravenous wolves and fearsome rats stalking the woods have both cautioned and terrified the neighboring citizenry whose doors are barred after dark, shielded by ancient religious artifacts protecting the innocent.  Superstitions guard against infestations of evil, as a cloud of death envelops the lands adjoining the broken battlements of a once proud castle, while ghastly apparitions saturate unholy ground.

Upon his arrival in this strange, depraved land, Thomas Hutter is warned away by anxious peasantry, fearful for his spirit. Hutter is a young newlywed in need of an infusion of funding for his marriage and not dissuaded by the fearful concerns for his safety.  After all, he has traveled for weeks to arrive at his destination, and must complete his work in order to return home to his recent bride. Compelled to walk through the deeply menacing woods toward the forbidding edifice, a dark carriage arrives among the shadows to aid in continuing his journey. The bewildering ravages of the brooding countryside invite their unwary guest into the courtyard of a nightmarish structure, embattled by centuries of disrepair, its very foundations rotting into the scorched Earth.  Welcomed by a monstrous visage, shrouded in darkness, Count Orlok welcomes his unwary prey into the dungeons of depravity that will soon become his agonized imprisonment. While Ellen Hutter waits anxiously for word of her new husband’s arrival, his torturous captivity within the walls of the ancient castle have painfully begun. 

While Dracula’s guest is left to languish within the prison walls of growing madness, Count Orlok departs for alien shores. Having seen a photograph of his captive’s bride, the heinous vampire determines to find and possess her. Thrust into the comparatively mannered pretense of Victorian sense and sensibility, the malevolent prince of darkness arrives by ship at the coastal community amidst a malignant plague of vermin infesting the seaside wharf, its impending evil suffocating the innocent populace. 

Written by Robert Eggers, while faithfully adhering to its literary roots, screen credit is given both to author Bram Stoker, as well as original scenarist Henrik Galeen for the Murnau silent classic from which Eggers’ film adaptation is derived.  The sumptuous, softly muted, often spectacular look of the film is credited to cinematographer Jarin Blaschke and set decorator Beatrice Brentnerova, while the crisp, often shocking editing of the film is devised by Louise Ford, as overseen by the director.  The musical score by composer Robin Carolan is eerily chilling.

Variations of the Dracula novel have seen numerous times since its publication in 1897, including a tepid 1979 remake directed by Werner Herzog with Klaus Kinski in the title role, eerily adapting the distinctive look of the vampire created originally by Max Schreck in the signature 1922 production, Nosferatu – Eine Synphonie des Grauens, or “A Symphony of Terror’ for its English language release. Renfield, a dark, comedic telling of the story, released in 2023, featured Nicholas Cage as the vampire, with actor Nicholas Hoult in the dubious title role of the creature’s slave. The proverbial fates conspired to bring the actor back to the thrice-told tale, as Nicholas Hoult once again assumes a commanding, intensely frightening performance as Thomas Hutter, among the leading protagonists in this newest incarnation of the story, along with gifted, physically exquisite actress Lily-Rose Depp (daughter of actor Johnny Depp) as Count Orlok’s noble prey, Ellen Hutter.  One must not forget Shadow of the Vampire, an embarrassing 2001 conceit in which German actor Max Schreck as the original Nosferatu is actually a vampire posing as an actor whose physical makeup is too startling to be artificially conceived.

Both Lily-Rose Depp and Nicholas Hoult deliver unnervingly powerful performances in the leads, while Bill Skarsgard dominates the screen as Count Orlok, his guttural voice and demeanor creating much of the most striking, haunting visual, as well as vocal, imagery.  If there is a single disappointment in the film, it is director Eggers’ decision to abandon the physical appearance of Max Schrek’s rodent like features in favor of a more human, if towering, presence.  Willem Dafoe is compelling as the aged professor and scientist recognizing the threat of the “Vampyr,” yet needlessly over the top in his performance during the film’s final sequences. Still, it is Eggers’ direction, striking visual style and lead performances that elevate the classic tale of Nosferatu to near cinematic perfection as a classic nightmare, and ultimate “Symphony of Terror.”   

The Life of Boris Karloff, “The Man Who Made a Monster”

Boris Karloff

By Steve Vertlieb: Perhaps no other actor in the long, durable history of horror on the motion picture screen has been so closely identified with the genre as Boris Karloff. Yet, this “monstrous” presence was as famous for his gentle heart and kindness as he was for his screen persona.

That his very name can conjure goose bumps and chills to children, or adults that remember his films, so many years after his legend and ultimate passing is a tribute to the artist and the man. Born William Henry Pratt on November 23rd, 1887, at Camberwell in the South of London, he was the youngest member of a family that included eight sons and one daughter.

He spent his formative years at the family home on Forest Hill Road in Dulwich, which may have earned him his later reputation (with apologies to H.P. Lovecraft) as “The Dulwich Horror”. Young Billy never knew his father. Edward Pratt had worked for the Indian Salt Revenue Service and had virtually abandoned his family in far off England. Edward died when his son was still an infant and so Billy was raised by his mother, Eliza Sara (Millard) Pratt until her untimely passing. Thereafter, he was raised and sheltered by his brothers and his sister.

While all of Billy’s brothers had eventually followed in their father’s footsteps and entered the Diplomatic Corps, one had briefly flirted with the theatre and had performed on the stage. When his career seemed at a dead end, he too joined the Diplomatic Service but not before the seeds of performance had taken root within the heart of his baby brother.

W.H.P., as he liked to refer to himself, had been smitten by the proverbial acting bug and no amount of familial coercion could dissuade him from his chosen profession. By all accounts, the youngster was a kind, gentle boy who had little aptitude for, or interest in, the service. He was a dreamer with strikingly handsome features, and a commanding voice. While his brothers chastised him repeatedly for choosing such a disreputable career, rather than the honor of political service, Billy would not entertain any course but his own.

As a child, Billy performed each Christmas in plays staged by St. Mary Magdalene’s Church. Interestingly, his very first role was that of The Demon King in the pantomime Cinderella. It would not be the last time that he would play such a part.

By 1909 William had become obsessed with thoughts of a life in theatre, and read for every part that he could find. At twenty-two years of age, he announced his intention to leave home and pursue an actor’s life. The youth purchased a second-class steamer ticket for Montreal and, on May 7th, 1909, sailed from Liverpool to a new land filled, he believed, with opportunities for his chosen career.

Theatrical positions were difficult enough to obtain for a seasoned professional, but Billy had no real experience and so resorted to manual labor in order to eat. Ditch digging and laying track for the British Columbia Railway System paid some of the bills and afforded him a meager meal now and again. His brothers supported him when they could with economic care packages, but it wasn’t long before he had grown despondent.

Reading the classified ads one day in a local newspaper he stumbled upon a notice placed by the Ray Brandon Players in Kamloops, some two hundred fifty miles away, seeking an experienced character actor. He desperately wanted to apply for the position but realized that his name wasn’t remotely theatrical. He recalled a distant family branch on his mother’s side by the distinguished name of Karloff. For a first name he chose what he fancied might be construed as a dignified, professional Christian name…Boris. It seemed to jell, and so young Boris Karloff happily applied for the position with the company in faraway Kamloops.

Touring Canada

After his first performance as Hoffman, the banker, in playwright Ferenc Molnar’s The Devil it was obvious to everyone, including the actor, that he was not a professional. However, the manager of the troupe felt that Karloff had potential and allowed him to stay. For the next year he toured much of Western Canada with the company, playing largely villainous roles.

Early in 1912, however, Canada’s infamous cyclone hit the community, wiping out both the town and the resources of the small acting troupe. Karloff then joined the Harry St. Clair Players in Prince Albert, spending two years with the repertory company. They toured the Midwestern United States, but studiously avoided performing in large cities. When the actor grew tired of working only in strictly rural towns and communities he found work with another touring company, the Billie Bennett troupe. They were taking a production of The Virginian on the road and, among their destinations, was Los Angeles, California. Arriving in December, 1917, Boris Karloff had discovered Hollywood.

Karloff in Hollywood

Fame and fortune continued to elude the young actor, however, but he found enough manual labor and temporary work in theatrical stock companies to pay the bills. Several years passed before he received an invitation from an old friend, Alfred Aldrich, to join him for a chat. Aldrich suggested that his friend try to find work in the growing film industry. Karloff hit the bricks, and his persistence paid off in winning some extra work in the celluloid community.

Aldrich introduced Karloff to a film agent by the name of Al MacQuarrie. The agent found Boris a few days’ work as an extra on a Douglas Fairbanks film called His Majesty, The American. He portrayed a Mexican soldier, and often spoke of this as his motion picture debut. With a bit more confidence under his belt he began making the rounds of the local agencies, meeting Mabel Condon who was at once enthusiastic about his look and potential. She cast him in a small part in a film with Blanche Sweet. It wasn’t long before a more substantial role followed, once again, with Blanche Sweet.

In The Deadlier Sex, he played a French-Canadian trapper, a role he was to continue to play in his next half dozen assignments. By 1923, the industry’s fascination with French Canadians had dissipated, however, and the actor found himself out of a job.

Lon Chaney Sr.

The story goes that on one particularly dispirited afternoon, Karloff heard the repeated honking of a car following him out of the gates of the studio. The man in the car behind him was an actor he had met briefly on a variety of film sets, and who had taken a liking to the young performer. Lon Chaney emerged from his vehicle, asking the startled youngster “Don’t you recognize old friends, Boris?”

Chaney invited Karloff to ride with him for a time. They drove together for an hour, during which Chaney asked his youthful friend about his goals and dreams. Chaney told him: “The secret of success in Hollywood lies in being different from anyone else. Find something no one else can or will do, and they’ll begin to take notice of you. Hollywood is full of competent actors. What the screen truly needs is individuality.”

Though still continuing to act in minor parts within minor films, he managed to supplement his income by working as a truck driver. Driving a seventeen-ton rig, he was asked to deliver three hundred casks of cement. The cement had to be carried from the warehouse to his truck, driven twenty-seven miles, and then unloaded again. In later years his wife, Evelyn, recalled the incident as what may have been the beginning of his life-long battle with crippling back pain.

In 1926 Karloff found a provocative role in The Bells, in which he played a sinister mesmerist alongside Lionel Barrymore, who actually sketched out the bizarre Caligari make up for his young co-worker. Karloff worked with Barrymore again in his first sound film, The Unholy Night (1929) which the older actor directed.

One afternoon in 1930, Karloff strode up the stairs to the Actor’s Equity office in Los Angeles to check his mail. The girl at the front desk asked him if he was working. When he answered “no,” she told him that they were casting a local production of The Criminal Code at the Belasco Theatre. He won the part of a vicious convict named Galloway who stalks and murders a stool pigeon. The play was a success, and when Columbia Pictures announced plans to make a movie version of the story to be directed by Howard Hawks, starring Walter Huston as the prison warden, Karloff was signed to repeat his stage role. The film was released in 1931 and, with his characteristic short-cropped hair and menacing features, Karloff was a frightening sight to behold.

Karloff was working steadily now and was cast by director Michael Curtiz for a Svengali-themed opus called The Mad Genius, along with John Barrymore.

Frankenstein

When Universal was preparing its production of Frankenstein, the part of the Creature had been offered to their new horror star, Bela Lugosi, but Lugosi turned the part down, fearing that his identity would be smothered in makeup. Lon Chaney had died unexpectedly and so the studio was left without a monster.

Director James Whale decided to take a chance on a fellow countryman, and relatively unknown actor for the part. Boris Karloff was given the role of a lifetime, and one that would forever change the course of his life.

Had Lugosi agreed to portray the “monster,” Robert Florey would have directed the film. When Lugosi declined the studio’s offer, Florey joined Lugosi on Universal’s adaptation of Poe’s Murders In The Rue Morgue.

Whale spotted Karloff having lunch in the studio commissary, and invited him to join his table. Whale commented later that “Karloff’s face fascinated me. I made drawings of his head, added sharp bony ridges where I imagined the skull might have joined. His physique was weaker than I could wish but that queer, penetrating personality of his, I felt, was more important than his shape which could easily be altered.”

Karloff arrived at the studio each morning at five-thirty and sat for three and a half hours in the makeup chair. Universal’s resident genius, Jack Pierce, created the demented appearance of the creature, an unforgettably shocking visage of a gaunt, hollow being tormented on either side of death’s descending veil.

The first appearance of the “monster” in the premiered film had to have been unexpectedly shocking to theatergoers. Whale’s startling introduction of Karloff is as unforgettable as any moment in screen history, perversely duplicated eight years later by John Ford as John Wayne reached close-up immortality in Stagecoach. The technique, although more romantic, was nearly identical in its staging.

There was an eerie, nearly ethereal quality to Karloff’s gestures, as though he had actually returned from the grave. His desire to return remains a chilling evocation of a lost soul, condemned to wander the endless corridors of eternity. When Colin Clive opens the creaking gates of the rafters buried deep within the castle ceiling, sunlight burns deeply into the scarred facial tissue of the transposed creature. Hypnotically, without a will of its own, the “monster’s” arms reach up toward the source of the light, a queer marionette searching in unfathomed recognition for the creator of existence.

As the rafters slowly close, returning darkness to the room, the creature’s arms descend in dumb obedience as the light of eternity passes from his gaze, leaving him alone and desolate once more.

Frankenstein became an enormous success for the studio, and for its newest star whose name was not revealed until the final credits of the picture, and then only as KARLOFF.

In 1932 Karloff earned a featured role in Howard Hawks’ classic Scarface starring Paul Muni. During the same year he was happily reunited with James Whale in the studio’s recreation of J.B. Priestly’s macabre comedy, The Old Dark House. With a wonderful cast comprised of Karloff, Melvyn Douglas, Charles Laughton, Raymond Massey, Ernest Thesiger and a young Gloria Stuart (later to star in James Cameron’s epic, Titanic), this quirky, eccentric version of Priestly’s Benighted remains a strange, delightful gem.

Universal decided to loan their new star to the prestigious Metro Goldwyn Mayer to play the coveted title role in Sax Rohmer’s exotic The Mask Of Fu Manchu. Wonderfully kinky, the film co-starred young Myrna Loy as the intoxicating, yet sadistic Fah Lo See, Fu Manchu’s sexually perverse daughter. Filmed prior to Hollywood’s infamous production code, the film joyously escaped the later scrutiny of The Hayes Office, and remains a fascinating example of pre-code extravagance.

Loy’s obvious excitation in ordering the flogging of her half naked captor, cowboy star Charles Starrett, is daring even by today’s standards: eyes open wide, nearly achieving an orgasm as the lash tears into his flesh with furiously increasing rapidity. Lavishly filmed and executed, The Mask Of Fu Manchu remains one of the most unique, original horror fantasies of the thirties and the definitive representation of Rohmer’s infamous villain.

Karloff returned to Universal for one of his most memorable motion pictures, The Mummy.

Released for Christmas, 1932, it featured Karloff as Im Ho Tep, the resurrected incarnation of an ancient evil. Directed by Karl Freund, an emigre from Germany’s golden, expressionistic era, Freund had photographed Lugosi’s Dracula and would continue working in Hollywood well into the 1950s as principal cinematographer for television’s I Love Lucy. Noble Johnson, who one year later would appear as the native chief in King Kong, played “The Nubian,” Im Ho Tep’s servant, while Bramwell Fletcher created an indelible impression as the young archaeologist who unwittingly brings the withered mummy back to life.

Screaming at the sight of the living mummy, Fletcher lapses quickly into mental incompetence, muttering “He…he went for a little walk. You should have seen his face.”

Fletcher was active for many years in both films and the theatrical stage, replacing Rex Harrison on Broadway as Henry Higgins in My Fair Lady. During the late sixties, he starred as writer George Bernard Shaw in a one-man show that toured the U.S. It was during a stop in Atlantic City, New Jersey, that this writer had the good fortune to meet and befriend the actor — a relationship that continued until his passing some years later.

The Mummy is rich in its atmospheric portrayal of an ageless soul, reaching out beyond centuries to reclaim a forbidden, reincarnated love. It remains one of Boris Karloff’s signature portrayals. His eyes literally burn with the intensity of one who has walked the corridors of time in search of his forbidden destiny. “Karloff, The Uncanny,” had been resurrected, along with the rotting flesh of the mummy he came to personify.

In 1933 Karloff returned to his native England in order to star in the brooding Gaumont British presentation of The Ghoul, based upon both the novel and play written by Dr. Frank King. Recently restored and rediscovered by an entirely new generation, the picture co-starred Cedric Hardwicke and Ernest Thesiger and is, in its newly discovered form, a revelation.

Karloff moved over to RKO Radio for the 1934 John Ford production, The Lost Patrol, in which he portrayed a religious fanatic gone mad in the Mesopotamian desert. It is an impressive, impassioned performance by an actor finding and exploring his considerable range at long last.

Karloff next co-starred, along with George Arliss, as the anti-semitic Prussian ambassador, Baron Ledrantz, in Alfred Werker’s The House of Rothschild for United Artists.

In May of 1934 Universal released their next major entry in the burgeoning Boris Karloff franchise. The Black Cat, directed by Edward G. Ulmer, became the first motion picture to pair the studio’s reigning “Titans Of Terror.” Karloff co-starred with Bela Lugosi in this fabulous tale of Teutonic adversaries in a war of nerves.

In the restored castle of the infamous traitor, Hjalmar Poelzig (Karloff)…built atop the graves of the countrymen he betrayed…comes his former friend, Dr. Vitus Verdegast (Lugosi), seeking vengeance after returning from a fifteen-year incarceration. Engineer Poelzig had stolen his wife, then married his daughter, reigning over the broken battlements of a decaying fort in which thousands had perished.

Smugly assembling a devil-worshipping cult within the walls of his blood-soaked castle, Poelzig is the embodiment of evil. A crazed genius and architectural futurist, he has designed an art deco palace worthy of the Wright Stuff.

To the somber strains of Beethoven’s Seventh Symphony, Verdegast plots his horrifying revenge, flaying the flesh from the shackled body of his host, bit by agonizing bit.

One year later, in May of 1935, Universal unveiled its masterpiece. After the release of Frankenstein in 1931 the studio had tried to persuade both Karloff and James Whale to film another story about the “monster.” Whale had no desire to repeat himself unless the treatment was sufficiently bizarre to warrant his attention. With a screenplay by William Hurlbut and John L. Balderston, and a cast that included Boris Karloff, Colin Clive, Valerie Hobson, Elsa Lanchester, Dwight Frye, Una O’Connor, O.P. Heggie and the astonishing Ernest Thesiger as the demented Dr. Pretorious, Whale delivered perhaps the greatest horror film of the decade and easily the most critically acclaimed rendition of Mary Shelley’s novel ever released.

The Bride of Frankenstein remains a work of sheer genius, a brilliantly conceived and realized take on loneliness, vanity, and madness. The cast of British character actors is simply superb, featuring the blatantly over the top, overtly gay, comic performance of Ernest Thesiger as the devil to Colin Clive’s Daniel Webster.

As thrilling and hilarious as the film often is, it also conceived one of the most moving and tragic film sequences of the thirties. Hounded and tormented by an ignorant mob of peasants, Frankenstein’s haunted creature is chased mercilessly into the forests of the night, where he stumbles upon the isolated cabin of a bearded blind man. Since the hermit cannot see the shocking features of his unannounced guest, he does not fear his nightmarish visage.

Attempting to communicate with the “monster,” he realizes that his mute guest is as helpless and physically impaired as himself. A bond of mutual trust is formed by society’s outcasts, and both reach out in kind for the opportunity to share a moment of tenderness and human compassion.

As the blind hermit offers his guest a hot meal by the fire he tells his newfound companion that they must have been brought together by fate. So taken is the creature by the hermit’s selfless spirit and gentle kindness that, as the strains of Ave Maria caress his weary heart, this relic from a world of corpses begins to convulse in tragic sobs. It is a heart wrenching sequence, interrupted all too quickly by the violent intrusion of John Carradine as an ignorant woodsman who sees only the ugliness, rather than the inner beauty, of the hunted beast.

Later in the film, when Frankenstein’s creation realizes that even his bride, another artificially resuscitated corpse, cannot bear to be touched by him, he bitterly sheds a final tear before blowing the laboratory and its deformed inhabitants to bits. Franz Waxman’s exhilarating original musical score for the film remains one of its greatest pleasures. Utilized by Universal in countless other productions, most notably in the classic Buster Crabbe serial, Flash Gordon’s Trip To Mars (1938), this symphony fantastique remains among the greatest, most influential scores ever composed for the motion picture screen and is an astonishingly eloquent tribute to a screen masterwork.

In July of 1935 Karloff starred as twin brothers, one kind and one evil, in The Black Room for Columbia. Later that same month Universal released the second of the Karloff/Lugosi pairings. Suggested by the work of Edgar Allan Poe, The Raven featured Karloff and Lugosi, respectively, as a criminal badly in need of plastic surgery and a brilliant, if mentally unstable, surgeon who deliberately distorts his face in order to bend him to his nefarious will. Karloff, as convict Edmund Bateman, is oddly touching as the flawed and fallen soul, while Lugosi handily steals the show in a bravura performance worthy of the Barrymores. Shifting the balance of power from the graphic finale of The Black Cat to that of The Raven, Karloff locks Lugosi within a deadly chamber in which the proverbial mad doctor is crushed, screaming, to his death.

The rarely seen, imaginative science fiction melodrama, The Invisible Ray, quickly followed in January, 1936, starring Karloff as the tragically misunderstood Dr. Janos Rukh whose noble experiments with Radium X are coveted and stolen by jealous contemporaries, while his young wife (the lovely Frances Drake, Peter Lorre’s vision of lust and perversion in MGM’s Mad Love – 1935) is similarly unhinged from his burning sphere by a more openly attentive suitor, Frank Lawton (A doomed passenger aboard S.S. Titanic in A Night To Remember (1958).

Lost to humanity and to himself, Rukh is at last consumed by the very radium that has poisoned his mind and his body. When the mother who had given him birth (Violet Kemble Cooper) smashes the last remaining antidote from his fingers with her cane, Rukh resigns himself to his bitter fate, an atomic meltdown of his cells before the grieving eyes of his parent. While this was the third pairing by the studio of arch horror rivals, Karloff and Lugosi, the latter’s part was a relatively minor, unsympathetic role, doing little to enhance his already fading stature.

Karloff often marveled at his friend and colleague’s unfathomable sense of business comprehension, frequently moving from a starring role in a major production to a minor characterization in a mediocre film. While Karloff’s theatrical instincts were usually intelligently thought out and wise, Lugosi’s choices were ill timed and self-destructive. They eventually destroyed him.

In March, 1936, Karloff starred in a seldom seen, yet deeply affecting film entitled The Walking Dead. He played John Ellman, an ex-convict wrongly executed for a murder he didn’t commit. When a kindly scientist (Edmund Gwenn of Them! fame) experiments on his corpse, bringing him back to “life,” Ellman seems to float between this world and the next. His hair has been streaked white, his eyes reflect the trauma of a soul lost between two worlds and, when he avenges his own death by killing those who accused him falsely, his gate is strangely reminiscent of Frankenstein’s “monster.” In the end, dying of gunshot wounds, he suggests that the doctor leave the dead to their inevitable fate.

Karloff returned to his native England once more to film The Man Who Lived Again for Gaumont British. This most satisfying production appeared lost for many years, resurfacing recently on home video and DVD in a pristine transfer. Co-starring Anna Lee and John Loder, the film concerns a brilliant scientist able to transfer the mind of one man into the body of another. Scorned and ridiculed by his jealous colleagues, Dr. Laurience (Karloff) succeeds in his mad experiments, finally attempting to transfer his own persona into the body of a much younger man, thereby extending his own life and winning the heart of his female assistant (Lee). The process is reversed just in the nick of time as Karloff perishes, taking his secrets with him to the grave.

In January 1937, Karloff appeared as an operatic villain for 20th Century Fox in the delightful Charlie Chan At The Opera, starring the gifted Warner Oland as the screen’s original Asian detective. (Oland also played Al Jolson’s Cantor father in The Jazz Singer, and the werewolf who infects scientist Henry Hull in The Werewolf Of London).

In January 1939, Universal Pictures released its third and final Frankenstein opus starring Karloff as the “monster.”

Universal had hoped to cash in on the success of their tepid, musical remake of The Phantom Of The Opera by casting its star, Susanna Foster, in an even more tepid clone entitled The Climax. Karloff stepped in for Claude Rains, who had already died in the earlier film, as a physician who tries to hypnotize Foster into believing that she cannot sing. It seems that the good doctor had already murdered his wife because her operatic career had come between them. Now, believing that the younger woman’s voice is the reincarnated embodiment of his wife, he sets out to prevent the tragedy from occurring again. While Karloff was as effective as ever, the scripting and music were hopelessly lame.

Knee-deep in the midst of its second official horror cycle, Universal hit upon the idea of combining its monsters in a horrific succession of malevolent Grand Hotel like ensembles, featuring all-star casts from its own haunted castle of contract players. House Of Frankenstein was released in December of 1944 but, while the erstwhile cast included Karloff, he would never again portray the “monster” on the silver screen. Rather, he played yet another in a long line of delectably mad doctors.

The release of Robert Louis Stevenson’s The Body Snatcher in March 1945 was another matter entirely, however. Produced by Val Lewton and directed by Robert Wise, the RKO release was a sober, adult look at the real-life crime of grave robbing to supply physicians with bodies for experimentation. Karloff played a ruthless practitioner of the trade, while Henry Daniell delivered the performance of his career as the tormented doctor willing to pay any price for a fresh corpse, caring little for the circumstances under which they arrived at his laboratory door. Bela Lugosi appeared in a decidedly minor role as a greedy servant attempting to blackmail the grave robber. It was the last time that the two would ever appear together on screen.

Lewton followed The Body Snatcher with an even more atmospheric production, Isle of the Dead, in which Karloff starred as General Pherides, driven to madness by superstition, intent on the spiritual destruction of an innocent girl he has come to believe is a vampire.

Filmed on a virtual shoestring, the Lewton productions quickly attained a well-deserved reputation for richly evocative imagery, favoring brooding shadows and imaginative cinematography above wasteful spending and extravagance.

Bedlam followed in May 1946, pairing Karloff with Anna Lee once again, in a story of the infamous mental institution of the eighteenth century. On a decidedly lighter note, Karloff returned to haunt the dreams of the insane, but lovable Danny Kaye in James Thurber’s The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, released by RKO in September 1947. The film was a smash comedy hit for the studio and for its esteemed producer, Samuel Goldwyn.

Karloff would revert to his earliest theatrical experience, playing Indians for Cecil B. DeMille in Unconquered at Paramount, and in Tap Roots for George Marshall at Universal in 1947 and 1948, respectively. Playfully poking fun at his ghoulish persona, Karloff joined Bud Abbott and Lou Costello in two theatrical outings at Universal. Abbott and Costello Meet the Killer, Boris Karloff was released in August 1949, while Abbott and Costello Meet Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde saw its release in August 1953. Both films were highly entertaining, and Karloff was chillingly effective as Dr. Henry Jekyll, as well as his monstrous alter ego, in the latter film.

Tiring of restrictive type casting in largely mediocre films, Karloff returned to the stage in 1950, starring on Broadway as both Father and the dastardly pirate, Captain Hook, in the acclaimed musical revival of J.M. Barrie’s fantasy, Peter Pan. The lovely Jean Arthur (Mr. Smith Goes To Washington and Shane) took flight from him as the enchanted boy who could fly, while composer Leonard Bernstein supplied the first-rate score. The production was a triumph for Karloff, who delighted in signing autographs for, and shaking hands with, star struck children after each joyous performance.

In 1952 the actor and his wife returned to England where he starred in a short-lived television series called Colonel March of Scotland Yard. Returning to the Broadway stage in 1955 to portray the sympathetic Bishop Cauchon in Jean Anouilh’s The Lark, Karloff regarded the production as the highlight of his long career. Julie Harris was his co-star as Joan of Arc in the celebrated play, recreated for live television in 1957 with Karloff, Harris and much of the original New York company intact.

Karloff had begun his television appearances in 1949 with a thirteen-week horror series for ABC called Starring Boris Karloff. Throughout the 1950s and 60s, Karloff was a familiar face to viewers. He reprised his starring role as Jonathan Brewster in Arsenic and Old Lace for the CBS drama series, Best of Broadway, on January 5th, 1955. Tony Randall co-starred as his befuddled younger brother.

Then, on November 6th, 1958, CBS presented a production of Heart of Darkness by Karloff’s favorite author, Joseph Conrad. The production co-starred Roddy McDowell as the man sent to find and “neutralize” a mad white man ruling a native community in the thick of the jungle. Heart of Darkness had been planned as a motion picture in 1940 by Orson Welles as his entry into the cinematic arena. He put the project aside in favor of a story based upon the life of newspaper publisher, William Randolph Hearst, titled Citizen Kane. Francis Ford Coppola finally filmed it in 1979 as Apocalypse Now for Paramount. While Marlon Brando played the part of Kurtz in the motion picture, it was Boris Karloff who starred as the mad Kurtz in the prestigious Playhouse 90 production in 1958.

Karloff was well known as a genuinely kind and gentle soul off the screen. He was also a deeply generous man, whose humility and shyness prevented any public recognition for his numerous acts of charity. That all changed on the night of November 13th, 1958, when host Ralph Edwards and an audience of millions witnessed the life and times of this very private gentleman unveiled on live television as a shocked, uncomfortable Boris Karloff became the latest subject of the popular television series, This Is Your Life.

Karloff continued to act on the small screen and, on September 13th, 1960, he presided over the premiere and continuing run of a milestone in television history. This was the night that saw the beginning of a new NBC series entitled Thriller. Karloff hosted all of the episodes in its two year run, and acted in many of its teleplays.

In nearly sixty years of commercial television history, no other program so effectively realized the enormous potential of cinematic horror. That this black and white hour of weekly television so perfectly captured the unimagined terror and literacy of some of the greatest works in modern horror literature is an enduring testament to the power and legacy of Boris Karloff’s Thriller. The late Robert Bloch, who contributed many of the program’s most disturbing chapters (“The Hungry Glass”, “The Cheaters”, “The Grim Reaper”), reminisced happily about his excitement and pride in having been so closely associated with the legendary series shortly before his passing. Sadly, the world of weekly television has seen nothing approaching the quality and integrity of this nightmarish series either before or since its remarkable, gothic inception.

In 1962, Karloff hosted a weekly series of one-hour science fiction stories, Out of This World, produced by BBC Television in England. Then, on October 26th, CBS Television aired its special Halloween episode of the beloved series, Route 66. “Lizard’s Leg and Owlet’s Wing” concerned series stars Martin Milner and George Maharis encountering a small “convention” of horror actors, attempting to resurrect the ailing genre, by inspiring fear amongst a coterie of young, female executives. As guest stars Boris Karloff, Lon Chaney, Jr. and Peter Lorre (joined by Martita Hunt from Hammer’s Brides of Dracula) stalked the unsuspecting corridors of a local motel in full costume and theatrical persona, women fainted innocently away as the boys and their devoted following of millions of smiling viewers looked on in blissful remembrance.

Chaney donned his Wolfman mask and clothing, while Boris Karloff, the elder statesman of fantasy and horror, became the Frankenstein “monster” for one last moment lost in time.

Route 66

In 1965 Karloff frightened timid librarian, Carol Burnett, in a painfully funny sketch for The Entertainers on CBS. In 1966 he had enormous fun playing a villain in drag for an episode of the NBC series, The Girl From U.N.C.L.E. in “The Mother Muffin Affair”. On December 18th, 1966, Karloff created yet another landmark in his long, distinguished career-that of the voice of the crotchety Grinch in Chuck Jones’ How The Grinch Stole Christmas for CBS. The Dr. Seuss classic remains a perennial holiday event, and won Karloff a Grammy for his spoken narration on the recorded album.

In February 1967, Karloff guest starred on the popular NBC television series, I Spy, starring Robert Culp and Bill Cosby. He played the sweetly befuddled Don Ernesto Silvando, pursuing the magically eternal quest of Don Quixote.

On screen, a new generation of children was discovering the legend of Boris Karloff.

In 1963 he appeared with friends, Vincent Price, Peter Lorre and a youthful actor named Jack Nicholson in Roger Corman’s delectable horror satire, The Raven. Karloff, the traditionalist, knew his lines and never varied from them. While he counted on others sticking to the script, and feeding him his cues, Price and Lorre were more adept at improvising and ad-libbing. After one particularly lengthy rant by Lorre, Karloff rested his chin upon his fist and asked, forlornly, “Are you quite through, Peter?”

In 1963, this time under the direction of master director, Jacques Tourneur, Karloff worked once again for American International in a brilliant effort titled Comedy of Terrors.

Reunited once more with Vincent Price, Peter Lorre, and Basil Rathbone, this comedic gem generated generous box office, as well as laughter.

Karloff’s next project for American International release was the Mario Bava classic, Black Sabbath, a truly frightening terror trilogy in which the wonderful actor played a vampire with bone chilling intensity. The Wurdelak, in 1964, would become his final, pure horror performance.

While Karloff continued working, by this time physically impaired and infirm, often performing from a wheelchair or with a cane, his last involvement of consequence came in 1968 with the Paramount release of a critically acclaimed “sleeper” hit called Targets.

Directed by fledgling artist, Peter Bogdanovich, and co-starring the director in a leading role, Targets was a profoundly disturbing study of a young sniper holding a small Midwestern community, deep in the bible belt, terrifyingly at bay.

Karloff and Peter Bogdanovich

The celebrated subplot concerned the philosophical dilemma of creating fanciful horrors on the screen, while graphic, troubling reality was eclipsing the superficiality so tiredly repeated by Hollywood.

Karloff co-starred, essentially as himself, an aged horror star named Byron Orlok, who wants simply to retire from the imagined horrors of a faded genre, only to come shockingly to grips with the depravity and genuine terror found on America’s streets. Bogdanovich’s first film as a director won praise from critics and audiences throughout the world community, and won its elder star the best, most respectful notices of his later career. While he went on to make several more mediocre films before his passing, Karloff regarded Targets as his final film.

Somewhere around 1967, this star-struck young man wrote to Mr. Karloff at his residence in London, sending an accompanying package of portraits, pleading with the immortal star to sign them. Some months later, a package arrived at my home, without an accompanying note. My praise and adulation had been absorbed, yet not addressed. Nonetheless, the hand of this great and gentle soul had dutifully signed each adoring photograph.

His health had been rapidly declining and by the early part of 1969 he had developed pneumonia. As the world prayed for his recovery, Boris Karloff passed from this Earth on February 2nd, 1969. A memorial service was held in his honor at St. Paul’s Covent Garden, known simply as the Actors’ Church. A commemorative plaque was placed inside the church, containing a quotation from Andrew Marvell’s Horatian ode “Upon Cromwell’s Return From Ireland.” It reads:

He Nothing Common Did or Mean
Upon That Memorable Scene

We shall not see his like again.

Herrmann and Hitchcock: The Torn Curtain

Bernard Herrmann and Alfred Hitchcock

By Steve Vertlieb: Alfred Hitchcock and Bernard Herrmann each reached the zenith of their respective careers during their celebrated artistic association, inspiring the brilliant cinematic expression and triumphant realization of their collaborative productivity. Each a genius in his field, Hitchcock was “The Master of the Eloquent Absurdity,” while Bernard Herrmann was its Maestro.

This is the story of their rise and fall, the provocative, often torrid creativity and passion that would unite them, and ultimately tear them apart…the jagged edge of their sublime artistry that resulted in “Herrmann And Hitchcock: The Torn Curtain.”


HERRMANN AND HITCHCOCK: THE TORN CURTAIN

Hitchcock, in his American period, had often remarkable success with his choice of musical collaborators, notably with Miklos Rozsa, Franz Waxman and, in particular, with Dimitri Tiomkin, who seemed able to echo the sense of urgency and nervous agitation associated with Hitchcockian dilemmas. However, during the director’s years of greatest critical, commercial and artistic success no one embodied the dramatic angst and sobriety of Hitchcock’s agenda more effectively than Bernard Herrmann. Through the earliest satiric strains of The Trouble with Harry to the cold war menace of Torn Curtain, Bernard Herrmann seemed the perfect musical expression of Hitchcock’s benign malevolence.

Bernard Herrmann

Both director and composer had, of course enjoyed great success with other partners along their separate paths in Hollywood and abroad and had become two of the most visible technicians in the industry. Hitchcock had launched his career in 1922 in Munich, Germany with the unfinished Number Thirteen, followed in 1925 by his first completed picture, The Pleasure Garden and would, over the years, become justifiably celebrated for his growing mastery of visual stylistics. Possessed of rare understanding and command of both camera and art direction, Hitchcock could convey in a single pan of the lens a situation a writer might take pages to convey. While his visual style may have conveyed poetry in motion, the soundtrack for most British films of the early sound period was maddeningly devoid of accompaniment. Consequently, while stylistically compelling, many of the early films by the master have not aged as gracefully as their American counterparts. When Hitchcock arrived on American soil in 1943, courtesy of producer David O. Selznick, it was to direct Titanic, the directors’ take on the ill-fated ocean liner. Postponed indefinitely, however, Hitch would film Daphne du Maurier’s acclaimed romantic novel Rebecca, a story he had coveted while still in England. Franz Waxman composed the full-bodied symphonic score for the picture which became the only Alfred Hitchcock production ever to win an Oscar for best picture of the year. (Selznick was presented the award as producer.)

Bernard Herrmann composed his first complete work for large orchestra, The Forest: A Tone Poem, in January of 1929. Five years later in 1934 he wrote his earliest works for radio, In The Modern Manner, a series of poetry settings, followed in 1937 by a string of experimental compositions for The Columbia Workshop. It was in 1938, however, that the composer’s fortunes would change forever when he became the staff composer for Orson Welles legendary radio anthology, The Mercury Theatre On The Air. Under the guidance of producer/star Orson Welles, Herrmann began his first thematic scoring for such dramatic presentations as Dracula, Heart Of Darkness, The Magnificent Ambersons, The Thirty Nine Steps, A Tale Of Two Cities and, of course, The War Of The Worlds, the notorious docu-drama that would bring both Welles and, ultimately, Bernard Herrmann to the attention of Hollywood.

Herrmann conducts the CBS Radio orchestra at a rehearsal of The Mercury Theatre on the Air directed by Orson Welles (1938)
Orson Welles and Bernard Herrmann

When Welles’ dramatization of H.G. Wells’ science fiction novel exploded onto the front pages of America’s newspapers in October 1938, the young actor became the talk of the country. As the movies beckoned, Orson Welles was preparing to take Hollywood by storm just as he had conquered the airwaves. Welles took the members of his radio theatre to R.K.O. where he would begin filming Citizen Kane. The cast members of the Mercury Theatre On The Air faced the motion picture cameras for the first time and Bernard Herrmann was signed to pen his first film score. The experience would forever change his life. Although considered by most critics and fans the single most influential composer the movies ever produced, Herrmann himself considered his career as a composer secondary to his first love, conducting. While most conductors would gladly have traded their batons for an opportunity to write enduring musical composition Bernard Herrmann, among the most uniquely gifted composers of the Twentieth Century, would gladly have given up composition for the opportunity to champion and conduct other composer’s works.

Hitchcock followed his debut performance on American shores with a second film in 1940, this time for producer Walter Wanger. Foreign Correspondent became the British director’s first mainstream American film and easily set the stage for numerous future themes and productions. With its multi-layered and convoluted plot, the war-themed spy melodrama appears the obvious precursor for the later and, arguably, most popular of Hitchcocks films, North By Northwest. Composer Alfred Newman joined the production team for the celebrated thriller and turned out a romantic and exciting score worthy of Hitchcock’s efforts. After a decade of prominent, memorable scoring by many of the world’s leading composers it must now have seemed obvious to all but the most conceited of film purists that music, as much as direction, cinematography and editing was an integral part of the motion picture experience. When Hitchcock objected to the introduction of music during a sequence in Lifeboat (1943) he questioned the logic of having a string section appear in the middle of the ocean. These people are lost in a lifeboat in the middle of nowhere, he is reported to have complained. Where, then, did the orchestra come from? To which composer Hugo Friedhofer is said to have responded “The same place the camera came from, Mr. Hitchcock.”

As Hitchcock’s celebrity increased, his public persona seemed at times to achieve star recognition. He was becoming as much a public figure as the actors and actresses who performed in his pictures. Always aware of his unique power in the industry, Hitchcock often cast himself in a walk-on performance in his productions. So popular were the director’s on-screen appearances that he frequently had to think of new and creative ways in which to place himself in a scene. With Lifeboat he faced his most formidable challenge; the story of a handful of shipwrecked survivors cast adrift on a raft in the middle of the ocean. He solved his dilemma by having an actor reading a newspaper in which there appears a before and after advertisement for weight loss. Hitchcock himself appeared as the model in the print ad. For all of his genius, however, Hitchcock was becoming increasingly demanding on the set, and his patience in sharing the spotlight with others was growing notoriously dim. When Miklos Rozsa’s score for Hitchcock’s Spellbound (1945) not only won the Oscar that year for Best Original Score, but took on a life of its own on the classical music circuit, he made a point of never working with the gifted composer again.

Bernard Herrmann’s conducting aspirations were rewarded when on April 6, 1943, Invitation To Music, a new weekly series of concert works, premiered over the CBS radio network. While Arturo Toscanini performed his conducting chores each week for NBC Radio, Bernard Herrmann shared similar honors for CBS. It was a most gratifying period for Herrmann, and made him something of a household name for a time as he entered millions of homes each week, along with a roster of guests that included some of the leading composers and conductors in the classical world. Unfortunately, however, his conducting rarely paid the kind of income he was becoming capable of demanding through his work with the major Hollywood studios and he was, to his sorrow, becoming increasingly popular as a major Hollywood composer. With the glorious music of films such as The Ghost and Mrs. Muir and Jane Eyre to his credit, his talent and reputation were about to bring him to the attention of another Hollywood genius, Alfred Hitchcock. If Hitchcock had become, through complex scenarios and technical expertise, the master of the eloquent absurdity, then Bernard Herrmann would soon become its maestro.

Herrmann had been living in New York with his wife, Lucy. When the CBS Symphony Orchestra finally disbanded in 1951 the couple decided to pack their belongings and start fresh in the land of dreams, California.

While Hitchcock’s To Catch A Thief was being completed for Paramount in 1955 he was already at work preparing his next film, a comedic exercise entitled The Trouble With Harry. Harry, a decidedly lighter film than the director had attempted in years, concerned the appalling dilemma facing its title character. The trouble with Harry was that the lately deceased corpse couldn’t seem to stay buried. Lyn Murray was busily finishing his score for To Catch A Thief and suggested his friend Bernard Herrmann for the assignment. Hitchcock had encountered Herrmann years earlier but the two had never really found an opportunity to cement a relationship. For his part, the composer relished the idea of scoring a comedy. Herrmann had produced much of his heavily dramatic motion picture output under the Twentieth Century Fox banner and welcomed the chance to work at another studio, however briefly. The quality of Paramount’s staff orchestra provided Herrmann with a challenge he hadn’t counted on. A perfectionist of legendary stature, Herrmann soon began fighting with members of the group, railing at their ineffectual and unprofessional performance. The Fox Orchestra had become a tight, well oiled, and finely tuned unit with whom Herrmann had enjoyed a long, successful collaboration. He wasn’t about to settle for second best, even for Hitchcock. Paramount’s head music cutter walked up to Lyn Murray at the completion of the first session and told Murray “He may be a friend of yours, but he’s still a prick.”

 Despite this uneasy introduction, The Trouble With Harry would signal the beginning of one of Hollywood’s most successful artistic associations. For the film Herrmann composed some original music, as well as re-using some cues he had written earlier for the CBS radio series, Crime Classics. While he often bristled at the suggestion that he re-used cues from other films Herrmann, as well as most other composers would, if the mood demanded it, use a theme from a previous work. Alfred Newman used the stirring theme from Vigil In The Night (RKO – 1939) in his own later score for Fox’s Hell And High Water (1954). The hugely prolific Max Steiner, having written over three hundred motion picture scores, reputedly became so confused during his heyday that it became difficult to remember if a melody was his own or if he had heard it elsewhere. So the story goes that his associates, as a prank, took the morning scoring sessions on one particular film, and replayed the tape of his newest composition through the radio in his studio bungalow that evening. Steiner nearly threw away the theme, thinking that he had inadvertently copied the work of another composer. Herrmann himself utilized themes from his score for Orson Welles’ Jane Eyre (1944) for his opera Wuthering Heights in 1951.

Hitchcock was delighted with Herrmann’s score for Harry, and regarded it as his favorite of their frequent collaborations. The score was lovely and lyrical, perfectly capturing not only Hitchcock’s wry sense of macabre humor but the sweet innocence of rural Americana, as well. A personal bond between the two artists formed quickly. Both Hitchcock and Herrmann had become renowned for their darker sides of genius. Each man was moody, and temperamental, suffering from long sieges of depression and prone to explosions of unpredictable rage. Yet, in each other’s company, they were trusting and comfortable. The normally reclusive Hitchcock would often invite Bernard and Lucy Herrmann for the weekend at his Bel Air estate. Hitchcock would cook, while the two men spent endless hours talking in the director’s kitchen. Each man regarded the other with respect and a degree of admiration. Herrmann seemed to understand Hitchcock’s inner complexities, and became a comforting influence on and off the screen. On the screen Bernard Herrmann became the musical voice the director had sought for years, a seamless expansion of the director’s complicated psyche, manifested perfectly in all of its psycho-sexual nuance. Whatever inner doubts and demons plagued and inspired both men seemed to come provocatively to life in each of their highly successful marriages of visualization and music. Rarely in film has there existed as pure an artistic umbilical cord.

For their second film together Hitchcock chose to return to the scene of an earlier crime, his 1934 British production The Man Who Knew Too Much. Although Hitchcock liked his earlier effort, he regarded it as “the work of a talented amateur.” Now, with the considerable resources of Paramount Pictures behind him, Hitch would remake the film as a master craftsman at the top of his game. The 1956 remake of The Man Who Knew Too Much is superior to the original in almost every aspect. The cinematography by Robert Burks is stunning, Richard Mueller’s use of Technicolor is spectacular, while George Tomasini’s editing is disturbingly subtle. The story line of the remake is fairly faithful to that of the original, including the explosive finale in which an attempted assassination is thwarted to the musical accompaniment of Arthur Benjamin’s lavish “Storm Cloud” cantata. For the new sequence, shooting would be completed on location in London at the Royal Albert Hall, complete with the London Symphony Orchestra, and the Covent Garden Chorus. Herrmann was asked to write an original composition for the climactic sequence but declined, choosing once more to champion the work of a composer he much admired, stating that no other scoring could begin to equal the thrilling conclusion of Arthur Benjamin’s celebrated work. In fact, in order to lengthen the sequence, Benjamin was commissioned by Paramount to write an additional minute and twenty seconds of music for his already highly regarded and well-known piece.

Per author Steven C. Smith in his wonderful biography of Bernard Herrmann, A Heart at Fire’s Center (University of California Press – 1991), Hitchcock chose to identify a known orchestra and conductor, rather than portray an imaginary ensemble with a fictitious leader. In the sequence, large posters proclaim the concert outside the hall along with its conductor for the evening. Arthur Benjamin suggested the use of British conductor Muir Matheson for the plum on-screen conducting performance, while the film’s producer Herbert Coleman offered Basil Cameron. Hitchcock made the final decision and Bernard Herrmann, in his only motion picture appearance, appeared on the podium in white tie and tails conducting the Benjamin cantata for the celebrated climax. This early pairing of Bernard Herrmann with the London Symphony Orchestra was a happy experience for both the conductor and his players. Herrmann reportedly won over the members of the orchestra with delightful tales of Hollywood’s golden years, along with his extraordinary knowledge of musical minutiae. So entranced were the members of the symphony that, by the end of shooting, they had presented a volume on their distinguished history to the composer inscribed “To Bernard Herrmann, The Man Who Knows So Much.” No less generous, Herrmann successfully negotiated an additional one hundred pounds to be paid to Arthur Benjamin over and above his original salary. Ultimately The Man Who Knew Too Much proved a huge success for Paramount, and remains among the finest examples of Hitchcock’s later work.

For their next pairing, Hitchcock moved temporarily over to Warner Brothers for the 1957 film The Wrong Man. Based upon a true story, the unrelentingly somber film related, in semi-documentary style, the tragic sequence of events leading to the mistaken arrest and conviction of Christopher Emmanuel “Manny” Balestrero, a musician at New York’s posh Stork Club, accused of an armed robbery he didn’t commit. The painful mental disintegration of Balestrero’s wife, Rose, under the crushing scrutiny of the police, as well as the unforgiving lens of a societal microscope, is nearly too painful to watch. Herrmann’s stark, moody score perfectly conveys the terror of a family crumbling beneath the weight of bureaucratic bullying and stupidity. Herrmann’s very affecting mixture of both brooding symphonic, and unnerving jazz motifs, seem a precursor to his final disturbing score for Martin Scorsese’s savaging of New York, Taxi Driver (1976). The composer passed away only hours after completing his score for Scorsese on Christmas Eve, 1975.

Both on and off the screen the relationship between Alfred Hitchcock and Bernard Herrmann was deepening. The composer was being drawn ever closer into the insecure director’s ever shrinking world of friends and colleagues. Hitchcock’s authoritarian command of his films left little room for the creative contributions of others. And, perhaps, justifiably so since he had become one of the world’s most successful and admired artists. When Hitchcock prepared a picture, he usually had the entire production outlined in his thoughts before a single frame of film had been shot. He was often difficult to work with, demanding loyalty and strict adherence to his instructions. In Bernard Herrmann, perhaps for the first time in his long career, he had found an equal, someone capable not only of meeting him on the same artistic plane, but of actually going beyond his own limitations as a creative visionary, and imagining the unimaginable. Herrmann became the invisible extension of Hitchcock’s artistic soul, expressing the proud director’s subliminal yearnings in music. For the first time in his career, Hitchcock began surrendering his authority and control to Bernard Herrmann, trusting the latter’s vision to compliment his own.

In 1958 Alfred Hitchcock created his masterpiece, Vertigo. Based upon the novel D’Entre les Morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac Vertigo was, itself, a modern variation of the Tristan myth upon which Richard Wagner based his opera, Tristan and Isolde. A story of love, obsession and enduring passion for a woman obscuring the fragile boundaries separating life and death, Vertigo became the perfect culmination not only of Alfred Hitchcock’s filmic fears and vulnerability, but of Bernard Herrmann’s, as well.

The “Portrait of Carlotta” Valdes by John Ferren, from Alfred Hitchcock’s “Vertigo.”

A private detective is hired by an old college friend to trail his wife who, he fears, has become possessed by the tortured spirit of her great grandmother, Carlotta Valdez, a suicide victim. He ultimately falls passionately in love with the enigmatic, hauntingly beautiful young woman and tries vainly to prevent her sad destiny from unfolding. The detective, a retired police officer, wrestles simultaneously with his own personal demons, suffering from an unreasoning fear of heights after helplessly watching a fellow officer fall to his death in pursuit of a criminal. Ferguson (James Stewart) follows the reincarnated Carlotta/Madeleine to an old Spanish Mission where she climbs the tower steps and hurls herself to the cobbled street below. Suffering a nervous breakdown, the detective feels the weight of two deaths on his conscience. Wandering the streets of San Francisco in depression and acute melancholia, Ferguson sees another woman who, with some adjustment of hair, dress and makeup might look exactly like his lost love. He makes her acquaintance and begs Judy (Kim Novak) to dress and behave like Madeleine. Strangely, she agrees, and Ferguson’s world seems to be coming together again until one day when Judy absent mindedly wears the necklace she wore as Carlotta Valez and Ferguson realizes that she is the same woman. His old college friend, aware of the detective’s vertigo from the newspaper reports, murders his wife and hires Judy to play her, creating a perfect scenario for deception, all leading to the pivotal moment when he’ll hurl her lifeless body from the tower with Ferguson lingering helplessly upon the staircase he’s unable to climb. “Scottie” drags Judy back to the scene of the crime where he conquers his fear and finally ascends the staircase. In horror Judy backs away and falls to her death, this time for real.

Misunderstood and under appreciated by American audiences at the time of its initial release, Vertigo is considered by most critics today not only Hitchcock’s greatest work, but one of the greatest motion pictures ever filmed. The picture and its musical scoring by Bernard Herrmann are exquisite jewels. As in his earlier examination of love transcending the vaporous curtain of mortal passage, The Ghost and Mrs. Muir, Herrmann’s music for Vertigo is nearly exultant in its expression of mortal anguish and the redemption of love. Herrmann’s own deeply felt longing for love and acceptance is excruciatingly evident in the hauntingly lovely, poignant and exquisitely painful music rapturously caressing the film. Wagnerian it its intensity, Vertigo is at once stunning and torturous. Its searing sensitivity is startling, stripping naked the composer and his own anguished vulnerability. Vertigo is a deeply felt canvas, a sad and beautiful portrait, painted by two of the cinema’s most gifted artists.

Bernard Herrmann believed that music for the cinema carried the same significance as music written for the concert hall. Music was music, he said, and he gave unsparingly of his talent to films, television, radio, opera and the concert stage. He abhorred the term “Film Composer”… as if there could ever be a difference in the quality separating films and the concert stage. Herrmann felt that music snobbery on the part of critics was absurd. There were only two kinds of music, good and bad. All of Herrmann’s music was of the former variety. A year before Vertigo, Bernard Herrmann formed the third of his three major film associations, first with Orson Welles, then with Alfred Hitchcock and, finally, with Ray Harryhausen, the legendary Stop Motion/Special Effects technician. Beginning in 1957 with Harryhausen’s The Seventh Voyage Of Sinbad and on through The Three Worlds Of Gulliver, Mysterious Island and Jason And The Argonauts, Herrmann seemed to find another kindred spirit in the imaginative Harryhausen, and an outlet for his own soaring spirit, a spirit unwilling and unable to be contained by earthly or mortal constraints. The gentle, sensitive Harryhausen opened up a whole new dimension to the hungry composer, a world in which his musical boundaries were lovingly ripped asunder, a wondrous fantasy world in which his own imagination joyously took flight from the mythological shoulders of skeletons, cyclopian monsters and fire breathing dragons.

In 1959 Herrmann returned to the network of his birth, CBS, for a new television series created by writer Rod Serling to be called The Twilight Zone. Sticking to his feeling that music was music whatever the setting, Herrmann composed some of the most spiritual, haunting music ever written for the medium, including the series’ original main title and closing themes which introduced the program during its first year. His moody, somber, and ghostly music was far more profound and eloquent than the more recognizable, yet quirky theme, replacing it in the second season. His work on Rod Serling’s Walking Distance starring Gig Young as Martin Sloane, a sad, harried advertising man longing to return to the security and simplicity of his youth, is among the loveliest works of the composer’s career, heartbreakingly reminiscent of both The Ghost and Mrs. Muir and Vertigo.

That same year Herrmann returned to the world of Alfred Hitchcock for one of the pair’s most thrilling productions, North By Northwest, a joyously preposterous roller coaster ride in which an unsuspecting innocent is thrust headlong into murder, pursuit and as deliciously woven a case of mistaken identity as Hitchcock had ever imagined. It was the culmination of some thirty years of ever developing Hitchcockian wrong man melodramas, with a convoluted screenplay by Ernest Lehman that Richard Kimble would envy. Roger O. Thornhill (It stands for “rot.”), as delightfully enacted by Cary Grant, is the wrong man who finds himself thrust into an unwelcome world of menace, murder and mayhem while attempting to telephone his mother. Herrmann’s opening theme was among the most exciting the composer had ever written, a perverse and exhilarating fandango thrusting both the listener and the film’s hapless protagonist into a dizzying, calamitous freefall from the faces of Mt. Rushmore.

Herrmann had introduced Screenwriter Ernest Lehman to Hitchcock a year earlier, thinking the two might hit it off. Indeed they did, first for the aborted project The Wreck Of The Mary Deare and, later, for MGM’s North By Northwest, the only time the director would ever work for the benign, if not cowardly lion. North By Northwest is the director’s most frenetic thriller, an absolutely wondrous entertainment that became one of Hitchcock’s most critical and popular successes. From the nightmarish attack in the middle of nowhere by a venomous crop dusting plane to the laughably dangerous escape across the facial blemishes of Mount Rushmore’s most famous presidential gathering, North By Northwest is both a visual and musical tour de force.

In 1960 Paramount Pictures released what would become Alfred Hitchcock’s most popular and, arguably, infamous success. Critics of the time dismissed the film as shoddy in tone and presentation, condescendingly deeming the picture unworthy of the aging director’s abilities. The public disagreed and Alfred Hitchcock’s production of Psycho proceeded to electrify audiences around the world. Paramount found the picture distasteful, objecting to its themes of murder, incest, and deviant sexuality. Hitchcock wanted to make Psycho in black and white for both artistic and economic reasons. It was, after all, a gothic horror film and color would shatter the sense of other worldly reality. Psycho was based on the novel by one of America’s most justifiably celebrated writers of suspense and weird fiction, the late Robert Bloch. Bloch was a sweet, witty and gentle man who, since the 1930′s, had been counted among the greatest purveyors of horror literature. When Psycho was published its dark, witty perversity appealed to Alfred Hitchcock. Although screen writer Joseph Stefano has in, recent years, either claimed or been given credit for Psycho’s narrative, Alfred Hitchcock always stated in interviews that his filmed version of Psycho “was ninety per cent Robert Bloch’s book.”

Hitchcock filmed Psycho on a tight television production budget and schedule, completing filming with a television crew in only five weeks. Upon completion of principal photography Hitchcock himself had begun to have serious misgivings about the picture. It seemed somehow flat and lifeless, and he gave serious thought for a time to cutting the film down to an hour and releasing it as a part of his long running television series. When Bernard Herrmann viewed the film he saw deeper possibilities and asked the director to entrust the film to him while the director went away on vacation. Hitchcock agreed asking only one favor of Herrmann, that he not score the shower sequence, preferring that the murder be illustrated only by the lonely sound of the running shower. When Hitchcock returned from vacation he viewed the picture with the additional element of music. Due to budgetary constraints, Herrmann was reduced to using only strings for the film without any other instrumentation. (The composer remarked later that a black and white film required the simplicity of a black and white score) Herrmann had, however, ignored Hitchcock’s instruction not to score the shower sequence, trusting that he had enough respect from his employer to take a chance on risking the loss of the director’s legendary temper. When Hitchcock saw the completed scenes with Herrmann’s shrieking violins tearing at Janet Leigh’s vulnerable torso, along with Anthony Perkins’ knife, he gave his nod of approval. “But Hitch,” Herrmann asked. “I thought you didn’t want any music during the shower sequence?” To which Hitchcock replied “Improper suggestion, my boy, improper suggestion.”

The score for Psycho was wall to wall music; a landmark, wholly original and influential symphonic masterwork…except for one brief interlude…the “Madhouse” theme, first written for Herrmann’s 1935 Sinfonietta for Strings and used again as the coda for the composer’s Moby Dick cantata, making a final appearance after Psycho in Herrmann’s last film, Martin Scorsese’s Taxi Driver. Hitchcock was regenerated by the greatest popular success of his career and yet, after Psycho, seemed to harden his heart increasingly toward others associated with his continuing popularity. In a rare public display of generosity, however, Hitchcock would often proclaim to interviewers that “thirty three and a third of Psycho’s success was due to Bernard Herrmann’s music.” Still, Hitchcock was growing increasingly reluctant to share the spotlight. A subtle, nearly unnoticeable chasm was beginning to develop between the two men.

Slowing down and becoming increasingly selective of his film projects, it would be three years before the next Alfred Hitchcock production would hit the screen. Moving over to Universal Pictures where he was offered a more lucrative, studio participatory role as a company executive, Hitchcock next tackled Daphne du Maurier’s short story The Birds, about the planet’s entire bird population turning savagely, and with decided finality, against mankind. Hitchcock had considered filming Marnie, a novel by Winston Graham, during this period when his favorite leading lady, Grace Kelly, had briefly flirted with the romantic idea of returning to motion pictures. The director soured on the idea when the royal family of Monaco objected to the thought of their princess portraying a mentally disturbed kleptomaniac for her return to films. Instead, Hitchcock returned to the author who had written his first American film, Rebecca. The Birds was largely a showcase for Universal’s special effects technicians. The screenplay ventured far from du Maurier’s original story and seemed lacking in any sense of depth or cohesion. The cast for the picture was noticeably lackluster. It introduced Hitchcock’s latest “find,” Tippi Hedren, a pretty young actress lacking any meaningful experience. Critics at the time attacked Hitchcock as savagely as his birds for turning senile and sacrificing wisdom for an overactive libido. Reception to the film was not kind, and Bernard Herrmann had little to do with the picture other than to “orchestrate” bird cries under Hitchcock’s instruction.

Herrmann fared better with the master’s next film, Marnie. Now that the inexperienced Tippi Hedren had so completely captivated him, Hitchcock was determined to turn her into a star and prove the critics wrong. For his part, Bernard Herrmann felt that the casting of Hedren in both pictures was a mistake, and the two men clashed again. In spite of the film’s structurally inherent weaknesses, Bernard Herrmann constructed a magnificently romantic score, a breathtaking, rapturous symphony that has survived the film it was written for. With his age increasing and his power over the box office diminishing, Hitchcock was beginning to be perceived by the public and industry insiders alike as old fashioned and out of step with the times. Perhaps, because of this growing realization that his career was nearer the end than the beginning, the director clutched at his newly found management status at Universal ever more fervently, and seemed to adhere more to company line and policy than ever before.

The studios had become more attuned to corporate philosophy than artistic consideration, and financial success was not only the bottom line, but the only one. Consequently, when the studio demanded that Hitchcock produce a hit song for Marnie in order to generate revenue for its recording arm Hitchcock, the ever loyal executive, demanded the same of Herrmann. The studio had been resistant to using Herrmann to score Marnie from the beginning. Hitchcock capitulated by insisting upon the hiring of Herrmann, but then ordering the serious composer to pen a hit tune for the picture. Studio executives felt that Herrmann was too old-fashioned for their liking. There were enough newer, younger composers on the scene, willing and hungry enough to get the job done without uttering a syllable of protest. Herrmann, on the other hand, told Hitchcock that he was crazy to want a song for his picture. He tried to remind Hitchcock of his own strength, reputation and popularity as a director, and suggested that Hitch tell his employers to shove their intrusive and improper suggestions up their collective rectums. Once again Herrmann was able to convince Hitchcock of the wisdom of his judgment but, despite the fact that Herrmann’s music was the best thing about the picture, the film’s failure at the box office increased peer and corporate pressure on the insecure Hitchcock, convincing him that he needed a hit, and effectively weakening Bernard Herrmann’s stature and influence where Hitch was concerned.

The musical climate in Hollywood was changing dramatically. The glory days of rich scores and enormous numbers of symphony players was now looked upon by cost conscious studio executives with scorn and derision. Motion picture studios had become huge conglomerates with many and diverse interests and obligations. During the 1960s, confusion and a corporate loss of identity seemed to plague film makers and their employers. Never before in the long history of Hollywood had there been such hysteria over how many masters one should serve. In order to stay alive the studios had become so departmentalized and fragmented that no central voice ever had the autonomy that had been enjoyed over the previous forty years. Teenagers had taken over the commercial marketplace, and motion picture executives were falling over one another in corporate corridors to appease them. If kids didn’t buy it, then it was a failure at the box office. Even in the creative end, the old guard was dying out, being quickly replaced by a new breed of composer with new priorities and more commercial sensibilities. Money was not only the bottom line. Again, it had become the only line. Symphonic scoring for motion pictures were looked upon as archaic, a distasteful relic of prehistoric times. Lionel Newman, who had succeeded his brother Alfred as the head of Fox’s music department, told Bernard Herrmann that producers didn’t want him anymore…that they were “running with the new kids.” Indeed, if a film didn’t include a marketable “rock” soundtrack for the kids, that omission could cut deeply into a film’s profits.

No one was more aware of this new reality than the aging Alfred Hitchcock who, although financially secure, had become quite paranoid over his recent failures at the box office. The failure of Marnie was a particularly bitter pill to swallow for Hitchcock who conveniently laid the blame for the picture’s failure at the doorstep of Bernard Herrmann. Lew Wasserman, the head of Universal and its corporate parent MCA, was adamant in his instruction to Hitchcock that a younger, more economically savvy composer be assigned to his new film, Torn Curtain. Wasserman held a grudge against Herrmann who had earlier turned down a job from the powerful studio head. All right, Benny, Wasserman said. When you get hungry you’ll come to see me. To which Herrmann replied Lew, when I get hungry I go to Chasen’s.

Hitchcock’s insecurities had made the once strong director frightened and indecisive. Unsure of which way to turn, he preferred not to think about the music for Torn Curtain, only half heartedly allowing his assistant, Peggy Robertson, to enter into preliminary discussions with Bernard Herrmann, now living in England and deeply depressed over the recent separation with his wife, Lucy. Hitchcock communicated with Herrmann now only through intermediaries and in telegrams. Through these cold, business like communications, it was becoming increasingly clear to Herrmann that his friendship with Hitchcock had suffered a mortal blow. Resentment on the composer’s part stemmed not only from a correct perception that the once mighty director had been reduced to a corporate puppet, being pushed around by his employers, but also from a bitter experience on Psycho when Hitchcock had substantially cut his salary in order to bring the picture in on a reduced television budget.

In these terse, almost condescending communications to England, Hitchcock made his desires for the Torn Curtain score abundantly clear. The type of music that they had used in their previous efforts was out of step with the times and old fashioned, wrote the director, who also felt that Herrmann had begun repeating himself and plagiarizing his work for Hitchcock. If Herrmann wanted to work with Hitchcock again, and enter this brave new world, he would have to learn new ways, and write a “hit” song that would appeal to teenagers. Herrmann tried to reason with the elder director and wrote back that Hitchcock was not the kind of film maker who made pictures for children. Hitchcock felt that he was being bullied and pressured by all sides, and didn’t seem to understand why Herrmann couldn’t simply capitulate and do what he was told to do. From Hitchcock’s point of view, Herrmann was an arrogant thorn in his side that needed to be removed in order to complete the picture. Times in the industry had significantly changed, he felt, and you either changed with them or fell beneath their wheels. The reality, of course, was another shade of gray. Torn Curtain was a dreadful picture, hopelessly boring and static with a flat script and lifeless performances from its principal players. The film needed a dramatic counterpoint in order to retain at least the appearance of suspense. What Torn Curtain needed, Herrmann later said, was music that didn’t make these people into ludicrous TV characters, but into reality.

Hitchcock had instructed Herrmann to refrain from writing any music at all for a ten minute sequence in an isolated farmhouse in which the hero engages in a life or death struggle with a Russian agent. While, arguably, the highlight of a lackluster picture the scene was still, somehow, flat. Recalling Hitchcock’s earlier “improper suggestion” to leave the shower sequence in Psycho silent, Herrmann felt that he could once again save the picture by ignoring Hitchcock’s instruction. In the Oscar nominated documentary Music for the Movies: Bernard Herrmann (Les Films D’Ici/Alternate Current/La Sept – 1992) the infamous sequence is first shown as it appeared in the final release without music, and then shown again with the addition of music written by the composer for the scene. The difference is, to coin a phrase, like night and day. The music, stark, brutal and dramatic, breathes welcome life into the sequence, rendering it far more realistic and shocking than it could ever have been played out over a silent soundtrack. Herrmann began recording the score on the Goldwyn soundstage in late March, 1966. After performing the “main titles” the studio players broke into spontaneous applause, demonstrating their enthusiasm for the work. Shortly thereafter Hitchcock, who must have been warned by his spies about the performance, arrived, unannounced, on the stage accompanied by his assistant, Peggy Robertson. Herrmann, believing in the correctness of his score, asked Hitchcock to listen to the newly recorded cues. Hitchcock’s rage was apparent as he told Herrmann that the music was exactly what he didn’t want. Herrmann begged Hitchcock to at least allow him to finish the day’s recording, and then make his decision. After all, both the stage and the musicians’ time had already been paid for. In a decision unheard of in Hollywood, evidently calculated to scold and humiliate Herrmann in front of his peers, Hitchcock dismissed the orchestra midway through recording and cancelled the remaining sessions. After a few terse, embittered words Hitchcock returned to his office, apologized to his employers, fired Herrmann, and offered to pay off the composer out of his own pocket. Hitchcock then telephoned Herrmann, recalls Alan Robinson, a horn player at the recording session, and began berating the stunned composer for stabbing him in the back. No less volatile, Herrmann screamed back that Hitchcock had abandoned his integrity and sold out for an extra couple of bucks. The telephone conversation was brief but deadly, effectively ending one of the most successful artistic relationships in the history of motion pictures. Alfred Hitchcock and Bernard Herrmann never spoke cordially to one another again.

Torn Curtain was released by Universal later that year with a new score by British composer, John Addison. As Herrmann had predicted, the picture was both a critical and commercial disaster. The mediocre score by Addison failed to produce the hit song that Universal desired. Both the film and its music were quickly and mercifully forgotten. It’s been suggested that Hitchcock had grown jealous, not only of Herrmann’s popularity and high profile persona, but of a growing perception that his films owed their previous success to the musical influence of the composer’s work upon them. Whatever the reasons for the split, as in most divorces, one participant remained certain of the correctness of the decision, while the other agonized over its finality. Indeed, Herrmann never recovered from the separation with Hitchcock, either emotionally or economically. The musical tenor of the times had abruptly changed and assignments within the Hollywood community had grown few and far between. Years later, during a speaking engagement at the University of Southern California, Hitchcock was asked if he’d ever work with Herrmann again. “Yes,” he replied, “if he’ll do as he’s told.”

Herrmann deeply mourned the loss of his friendship with Hitchcock, and pleaded with mutual friends and colleagues to intercede on his behalf, but it was to no avail. As far as Hitchcock was concerned, Herrmann had tried to sabotage his film and their friendship was over. Herrmann’s health began declining, and the once handsome young composer appeared far more aged than his years. Happily, within two months of the Torn Curtain debacle, Herrmann was at work on one of his finest scores for French director Francois Truffaut, the lushly romantic Fahrenheit 451, based on the celebrated futuristic novel by one of fantasy and science fiction’s most gifted writers, Ray Bradbury. The film is a haunting, memorable fantasy, Truffaut’s first English language picture, producing a deeply felt, moving and poetic score by Herrmann.

Ray Bradbury, Hitchcock and Herrmann

In 1972 a talented young director named Brian De Palma, believing Bernard Herrmann dead, requested a Herrmann-like composer for his Hitchcockian thriller Sisters. When he learned, to his delight, that Herrmann was not only alive but hungry for film work, the director immediately set up a meeting in order to screen a print of the film for Herrmann. Believing that it would give Herrmann an idea of the kind of music he wanted for his film, De Palma arranged to have the soundtrack of Marnie played under the dialogue. Herrmann was not amused, and began thumping his cane against the floor threateningly. When De Palma, dumbfounded, warily asked Herrmann what the problem was, Herrmann berated him mercilessly for presuming to suggest how he should score the film. “But Hitchcock,” De Palma pleaded. “You, Sir,” replied Herrmann icily “are not Hitchcock.” Herrmann’s temper was legendary in Hollywood, as recalled by Andre Previn on a 1980 television special, Music for the Movies, televised by WQED-TV in Pittsburgh, and shown throughout the nation on public television. Performing cues from Psycho with the Pittsburgh Symphony, Previn recounted a harrowing incident at Twentieth Century Fox in 1951 when visiting the scoring stage for Robert Wise’s The Day The Earth Stood Still. Fascinated by the diversity of electric instrumentation Herrmann was using for the picture, Previn returned with an electric blanket which he presented to the outraged composer. “He didn’t find it funny at all,” remembered Previn, forced to stand there and endure Herrmann’s withering tirade.

In his final years, Bernard Herrmann was being re-discovered by an entirely new generation of film directors who had grown up inspired by classic films featuring his music. He had even begun a series of newly recorded albums in which he conducted excerpts from many of his most prestigious scores. The first of these, recorded with the National Philharmonic Orchestra, was Music From The Great Movie Thrillers, an affectionate homage to his work for the films of Alfred Hitchcock. When the album was released in 1968 Herrmann hoped that its appearance might soften Hitchcock’s heart toward him. With his new bride, Norma, at his side, Herrmann returned to Los Angeles from England and visited Hitchcock’s office, wanting to introduce her to his old friend. Hitchcock, lurking on the other side of the door, refused to see him, sending Herrmann into a rage, storming out the door to the director’s office for the last time.

Hitchcock and Cary Grant

Hitchcock was to direct only three more films, Topaz in 1969, Frenzy in 1972 and Family Plot in 1976. Of these, only Frenzy was recognized by the critics as a last masterwork by an aging genius. Although honored frequently as a distinguished elder statesman, most notably by The American film Institute who presented the director with their Life Achievement award in March, 1979, Hitchcock in his last years was plagued by depression, frustration and loneliness. At 9:17 on the morning of April 29, 1980, with his family at his bedside, Alfred Hitchcock passed quietly away. He was eighty years old. In June and July, 1975, Bernard Herrmann wrote one of his most exquisite scores for Brian De Palma’s haunting Vertigo clone, Obsession, arguably De Palma’s masterpiece. The complex tale of love, passion and betrayal was deeply moving in its own right, despite the similarities to the Hitchcock film, inspiring a beautiful, profoundly romantic score by Herrmann. Martin Scorsese was a long time admirer of Herrmann’s work and offered him an opportunity to write the music for his new film with Robert DeNiro, Taxi Driver. From October through December, 1975, Herrmann committed himself to completing his brooding jazz score for Scorsese, a score he felt might now, at long last, take him in new directions. It was an adventurous, experimental work atypical of the composer’s overwhelming body of music, and one which he felt most excited about.

On December 23, 1975, complaining of not feeling well, Herrmann, nonetheless, insisted on finishing the recording of his music for Taxi Driver in order to meet the deadline for completion of the soundtrack. Just past midnight on Christmas Eve, 1975, Bernard Herrmann sighed and passed away peacefully in his sleep. In a tribute rare in Hollywood, Martin Scorsese dedicated his acclaimed film to the late composer. The final credit in the picture reads, simply, “Our gratitude and respect, Bernard Herrmann, June 29, 1911-December 24, 1975.” It was an eloquent summation to a life and career in service to the nobility of art. The divisive, violent tearing of a curtain binding two men together in love, friendship and mutual respect was not unlike the blood-soaked torn curtain ripped from its hinges in Psycho, the last vestige of humanity separating Marion Crane from ultimate disaster and destruction. The title of their last collaboration, Torn Curtain, was no less prophetic.

Remembering James Earl Jones (January 17, 1932 – September 9, 2024)

By Steve Vertlieb: James Earl Jones was a giant presence, both on screen and in life. He was among the greatest actors of his generation. He triumphed on stage as boxer Jack Johnson in The Great White Hope, memorably repeating his Broadway triumph on screen, winning an Oscar nomination for his stunning performance.

A kind, gentle soul, he was nonetheless an outspoken proponent for both human and civil rights. He dominated every stage of the arts, winning a Tony, an Oscar, and a Grammy. However, it was his voice… A voice that dominated every scene in which he appeared. It was as if the voice of God emanated from his lips. His words were poetry, commanding both admiration and respect from all those fortunate enough, either to share the stage and screen with him, or to witness the sheer magnificence of his work.

He was an outspoken champion of humanity whose personal humility overshadowed his warmth. However, it was his work as an actor that propelled him to the peak of his profession and it was the power and eloquence of that unforgettable voice that catapulted him to fame.

As the iconic voice of Darth Vader, father to Luke Skywalker, in the original Star Wars films, as well as the proud Mufasa in Disney’s The Lion King, his voice soared beyond the heavens in strength, force, power, and ultimate dignity.

And that was who he was … a giant voice within a giant of a man. James Earl Jones has left us. His mortal physicality has ascended to take his place with the gods of legend and myth. But his voice … that beloved magnificence of vocal magic, that verbal eloquence of electrical ferocity, that shall forever remain, dominate, and endure.