cinema history class: the changeling (1980)

The session: Creepy Kids!
Four weeks of films featuring creepy kids. Or is it creepy films about kids?

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 2: The Changeling (1980)
Directed by Peter Medak

My Level of Prior Knowledge
Never heard of it.

Plot:
After losing his wife and daughter, a composer moves into a remote mansion. There he finds he's not quite alone. As he investigates, he uncovers the house's dark secret.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
The Changeling grabs hold with suspense from the very start and absolutely refuses to let go; every creak of the sprawling mansion and every dark hallway left me clenched in nervous anticipation. Unlike so many horror films that lean on cheap scares, this haunted house story expertly builds tension through uncertainty and atmosphere, often making the most mundane moments intensely unnerving. Rarely has “waiting for the next shoe to drop” felt quite this electrifying—edge-of-your-seat is almost an understatement.

It's a wonder that The Changeling isn’t more famous, considering how well it outplays classics like The Exorcist in suspenseful storytelling. Much of the movie’s power comes from how it toys with expectations—a child’s presence looms early, leading to a quiet twist where the main character’s daughter steps aside and sorrow fills the space. You never quite know what’s lurking in the darkness, and the movie keeps cleverly misdirecting both its characters and audience right up to the chilling finale.

Even the supposed villain, Senator Carmichael, is handled with tragic nuance, becoming almost sympathetic as the truths of the haunting unwind. The Changeling does suspense so well it’s almost exhausting, and yet, that tension makes every scene impossible to look away from—this is the kind of horror that lingers long after the credits roll. 

cinema history class: the innocents (1961)

The session: Creepy Kids!
Four weeks of films featuring creepy kids. Or is it creepy films about kids?

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 1: The Innocents (1961)
Directed by Jack Clayton

My Level of Prior Knowledge
Never heard of it.

Plot:
A governess takes a job caring for two children on a remote estate. But things turn sideways. Is the house haunted? Are the kids haunted?

Reaction and Other Folderol:
The Innocents is one of those rare movies that manages to unsettle on multiple levels, and watching it feels a bit like stepping into a dream where every shadow might have a deeper meaning. Its haunting atmosphere instantly reminded me of The Woman in Black, not just for the ghostly elements but for the imagery. The presence of overt sexual undertones in The Innocents sets it apart—unlike the chilly restraint in The Woman in Black, Clayton’s film constantly hints at forbidden desires and tangled emotions beneath its gothic surface.

There’s also a strong Carnival of Souls vibe in the way the movie uses ambiguity and atmosphere. Instead of relying on cheap scares, it draws out long stretches of discomfort, where faces dominate the frame and silence feels loaded with meaning. Deborah Kerr’s performance is key here—all those tight close-ups of her fearful, searching expressions ramp up the eeriness. There’s something hypnotic and deeply creepy about her uncertainty, and those moments when you see her face fill with terror communicate so much more than any scream or jump-scare could ever do.

One of the film’s greatest strengths is how it refuses to provide any easy answers. Is the governess losing her grip on reality, or are genuine supernatural forces at play? This question does get resolved—or at least I think it does. But it’s in that ambiguity that the movie finds real power. The final scenes with little boy stand out as the most disturbing—I realized that he was speaking as though possessed of adult logic, engaging in arguments and debates that feel too mature for his age. I don’t recall if he was doing that earlier in the film. But this manner multiplies the discomfort, making it hard to pin down whether the horror is coming from ghosts or psychological breakdowns.

All of these elements create a movie that doesn’t let go of the viewer’s mind—even days after watching, fragments return in flashes: a child’s adult speech, Kerr’s haunted eyes, the suggestion that reality itself might be shifting. If The Innocents feels deeply creepy, it’s because it knows the most powerful hauntings don’t come from what’s seen, but from what’s left unseen and unresolved. 

cinema history class: the spider woman strikes back (1946)

 The session: "Give Me My Rondo!"
Four weeks of films starring the unique Rondo Hatton

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 4: The Spider Woman Strikes Back (1946)
Directed by Arthur Lubin

My Level of Prior Knowledge
Never heard of it.

Plot:
After accepting a job as assistant to a blind recluse, a young woman discovers that her boss is harvesting her blood to feed plants as part of some weird plot.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

Despite the anticipation conjured by its title, this leaves much to be desired. The “spider woman” plot point was really secondary – or maybe even tertiary. And this was supposed to be Rondo Hatton month, but Hatton was severely underutilized as Mario, the title character’s mute henchman. His presence is unsettling but ultimately underdeveloped; I was eagerly expecting his signature screen menace and minimal but gravelly dialogue. So I was disappointed that his performance offers little beyond silent skulking. OK, I think there was also a strangling…but still…

The film’s overall pacing is one of its weakest points; it races through its story as if desperate to complete its runtime. This rushed feeling undermines any suspense or character development. From a brief documentary that Keith showed us, we learned that the film was made to complete a contractual obligation. And it shows.

Perhaps most misleading is the “Spider Woman” moniker, which feels more like a marketing ploy than an integral element of the movie’s narrative. Spiders occupy only a minor part in the story—overshadowed by a plot about blood-harvesting and carnivorous plants—rendering the titular promise almost moot and leaving viewers to wonder why the arachnid theme was emphasized at all. In the end, The Spider Woman Strikes Back stands as a minor and muddled footnote in Universal’s horror catalog, noteworthy mainly for its squandered talent and unfulfilled potential. 

cinema history class: the pearl of death (1944)

The session: "Give Me My Rondo!"
Four weeks of films starring the unique Rondo Hatton

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 3: The Pearl of Death (1944)
Directed by Roy William Neill

My Level of Prior Knowledge
Never heard of it.

Plot:
After the infamous Borgia Pearl is stolen from a museum, Sherlock Holmes must solve a series of brutal murders—victims found with broken backs amid smashed china—unraveling its connection to a master criminal, Giles Conover, and his sinister accomplice known as the Creeper.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
It's an odd thing to feel disappointment at seeing a Sherlock Holmes movie starring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. But this was Rondo Hatton month, and I wanted more Rondo.* Rondo, of course, wasn't a leading man type, so his screentime has been somewhat limited in all the movies Keith has shown us. But that's even more the case here. Clearly, this production was not created for Rondo; Rondo, as the villain, is not the star. His role is pivotal, but he is mostly seen in shadows.

But the team of Rathbone and Bruce were arguably the best Holmes/Watson combination. I do think they would be better if Watson weren't portrayed as a bumbler, but this film was typical of the team's work. The existence (however brief) of Rondo Hatton was a bonus.

*In fairness, Keith did tell us in advance that this was a Sherlock Holmes film starring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. Ahead of each session, he emails us to let us know what we'll be seeing. Maybe I should pay closer attention to these emails. Don't let him know that I missed that detail.

cinema history class: house of horrors (1946)

The session: "Give Me My Rondo!"
Four weeks of films starring the unique Rondo Hatton

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 2: House of Horrors (1946)
Directed by Jean Yarbrough

My Level of Prior Knowledge
Never heard of it.

Plot:
A misunderstood artist saves a disfigured man from drowning and befriends him. He then proceeds to manipulate the man into murdering art critics.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
Again, it's fun to watch Rondo Hatton as a brutish figure. He says very little, and he says it in a monotone, but it works. The Creeper, as portrayed by Hatton is a compelling antagonist -- one who you can simultaneously hate and sympathize with.  The plot is compelling -- almost noirish, though the dialogue lacks the speedy crispness of a film noir. It's efficient; there's no time wasted.

What bothers me most about House of Horrors, though I really shouldn't hold it against the movie, is something Keith told us a week earlier when he showed us The Brute Man. Apparently The Brute Man, though it was made later, was (in part) an attempt at creating an origin story for The Creeper. It doesn't really make sense, given the settings. I'm probably obsessing too much over continuity.