The Raven by Roger Corman is a mystery of a film. Not the film itself, it's a zany madcap send up of horror films. Or is it? (Yes, it is.) But is it? Is it really? (Again, yes.)
It is and isn't. It's an anomaly on the Corman/Poe/Price landscape (as far as I know, I'm still a relative neophyte when it comes to the Corman/Poe/Price cycle, having only seen The Raven, House of Usher, and The Pit and The Pendulum.)
So what exactly is The Raven? Is it a joke on the audience? Is it a purposeful subversion of expectation? Complete with a trailer that tries to play it straight, despite the fact you can clearly see Peter Lorre wearing big, fake Raven wings in one shot? (Although the trailer does end with the 3 stars standing shoulder to shoulder saying "Quoth the Raven" one at a time, until in unison saying "Nevermore." so maybe the trailer wasn't trying too hard to hide the true nature of the film. That this isn't like the other Corman/Price/Poe adaptations which are more than simple B films and are actually extremely well done "chillers and thrillers" (to speak in the parlance of the time). It's closer to Young Frankenstein except, you know, not as funny.
Part of me does wonder now, seeing the poster (which clearly advertises the film as horror) and the aforementioned trailer if this film was actually intended to be scary. But that doesn't make sense, beyond the anachronistic dialog of Peter Lorre, and the oompah band sounding soundtrack (horror films do not have that much xylophone in them)there's the convoluted plot, laser fingers, and Price pulling faces so hammy, "insert Denny's metaphor before publication". Oh and Vincent Price's name is "Craven".
Is it a joke on the audience? The way that part of the "selling" of To Wong Foo Thanks For Everything, Julie Newmar is you have two big action stars together in a movie annnnnd they're not doing action! They're doing drag comedy! Boom, subverted. Peter Lorre! Boris Karloff! Vincent Price! Roger Corman! Titans of horror! Boom, subverted your fragile 60s fandom expectations.
Is it a joke on Hollywood? If this was the first Corman/Poe film I would be more likely to suspect that it was just a director cutting his teeth (though probably at this time he had already directed or produced 1,000 films, man is nothing if not prolific)(he makes Takashi Miike look like Terrance Malick). But seeing as he had already made 4 adaptations including the no fooling masterpieces House of Usher and The Pit and the Pendulum he couldn't have screwed up this bad in trying to make something appear serious and having it come out high camp right? Do I not understand camp or cult cinema? I am always ready to be taken to film school, as long as the teacher doesn't have a neckbeard or a soul patch.
So is this Corman's (and Matheson's, Richard Matheson) joke on the studio system? Sort of a "This is our impression of you" move? Because when you find out that the main character's name is "Craven" and that this Edgar Alan Poe adaptation is actually about warring wizards and double crossing dames (and talking birds, natch) you begin to think, "Yeah, this is actually exactly what would happen if actual Hollywood tried to adapt Edgar Alan Poe." I mean, truth and fiction, strange but true, I didn't see the John Cusack "Raven" film but I heard it was pretty terrible. Then again people say that Bob Dylan is really great, so who knows?
The Raven is actually a lot of fun. It's a bit uneven at times, the story gets convoluted (which is why I suspect there's a scene towards the end where Lorre just retells the plot to his son, played by a ridiculously adorable 26 year old Jack Nicholson), the special effects are dated and the introduction to the film seems to be made entirely from stock footage. But those flaws, with this creative team, from this period of time, just add to the film's charm. I could not stop laughing at the interplay between Lorre and Price, particularly a scene that I suspect was improvised where Price tries to dress Lorre in various wizard robes. The beginning of the film was so goofy and charming that I couldn't believe that Richard Matheson wrote the script (until of course Hazel Court seductively revealed herself to be a cheating, deceitful, power mad floozy who may or may not be sleeping with Karloff, then the Matheson touch was in full view). Actually the ol' Matheson flair comes out again when Price makes a speech about how man can't hide from evil and he now realizes the danger of apathy and isolationism, that 1960s heavy handed, Twilight Zone style, none too subtle, sermonizing against Communism in full effect.
I'm glad that I watched it third in the cycle, despite it's actual position as being made fifth, it feels like a nice mid meal snack. Or like a dessert wine, but during the main course? I don't know from food. It was nice to see the gang letting their hair down after the really disturbing actions of Pendulum and Usher. I'm going to keep watching these Price/Corman/Poe films (as well as as much Vincent Price as I can get my hands on. Also watched Witchfinder General ,which was dark, but fun, but gruesome, but fun, and Laura where Vincent plays a supporting role but the film is an honest to god masterpiece.) I'm also going to start having to watch more Peter Lorre films because I believe I've only seen him in Casablanca and as ridiculous as he was in this film, he was hilarious and watching him interact with other characters or talk to himself was consistently entertaining on every level.
This film should be much higher in the cult canon than it is, although if someone could point out where the official cult rankings are and who gets to decide who moves up and when, that would be great. Don't say The A/V Club though or I'll puke blood.
No comments:
Post a Comment