H. P. Lovecraft films

Pvt. Stash said:
The Un-nameable (sp?)


there was also an Unnameable 2 , but that one blew... the first one is very Lovecraftian tho'...
Click to expand...

It's not terrible, it's just that... not only does the "unnamable" have a name, it's also very visible and not really indescribable, missing the point of the original story. Especially since the monster's face is on the DVD cover...
 
Dessi said:
Another vote for Dagon.

I didn't like Re-animator, either the film or the original story. Out of all the Lovecraft stories to make into a movie, Re-animator is the worst of the lot. So much better material they could have used in place of this crappy story.
Click to expand...

Lovecraft didn't even like Re-animator. He only even finished it because he needed the money, and because it was serial and he was probably afraid WT would never publish another one of his stories if he left Re-animator hanging.
 
I've never really seen an actual Lovecraft film I enjoyed, every one seemed to be a bad B movie to me. I gave up a long time ago, but it seems a number of them are listed here I should try. But I have seen Lovecraftian films I enjoyed. I think that Ghostbusters and Darabont's the Mist and Carpenter's remake of the Thing are the among the finest and would be considered Lovecraftian at least. Oh, and the Evil Dead series :D
 
It's a crying shame I think Cameron and Del Toro's project won't be gambled on by any studios for being R rated. Apparently no studio wants to risk the budget they desire on an R rated scifi/horror movie.
 
I very often hear Carpenter's The Thing called Lovecraftian, or occasionally even more specific assertions that it was "based on At The Mountains of Madness". I have to say I completely disagree; the only things the two stories have in common are Antarctica and aliens. I don't see any Lovecraft whatsoever in The Thing.

As for At The Mountains of Madness not being picked up - I tend to blame Del Toro for those circumstances, not the studios. There's no reason that movie has to be R. Even the most horrific scene of the story - the discovery of the killings at the research camp - can rather easily be done in a PG13 way without harming the narrative in the least; so the fact that Del Toro is insisting on an R rating makes me suspicious that he wants gratuitous gorn in that scene, or that he wants to needlessly add a bunch of his own crap to the story (like perhaps showing the initial monster attack rather than the discovery of the aftermath, or having more monster attacks/character deaths in the city, etc).
 
Checkmite said:
As for At The Mountains of Madness not being picked up - I tend to blame Del Toro for those circumstances, not the studios. There's no reason that movie has to be R. Even the most horrific scene of the story - the discovery of the killings at the research camp - can rather easily be done in a PG13 way without harming the narrative in the least; so the fact that Del Toro is insisting on an R rating makes me suspicious that he wants gratuitous gorn in that scene, or that he wants to needlessly add a bunch of his own crap to the story (like perhaps showing the initial monster attack rather than the discovery of the aftermath, or having more monster attacks/character deaths in the city, etc).
Click to expand...
I was surprised to learn that Mountains was considered a horror story. I wrote a persuasive essay in high school that argued that it ought to be considered science fiction.
 
Checkmite said:
As for At The Mountains of Madness not being picked up - I tend to blame Del Toro for those circumstances, not the studios. There's no reason that movie has to be R. Even the most horrific scene of the story - the discovery of the killings at the research camp - can rather easily be done in a PG13 way without harming the narrative in the least
Click to expand...

I suppose Alien could have had a PG certificate instead of an R, if they'd cut the chestburst sequence, the xenomorph's mouth parts punching a hole in Parker's face, the sounds Lambert makes as she is killed and Ash's decapitation, but would it have been as good?
 
arthwollipot said:
I was surprised to learn that Mountains was considered a horror story. I wrote a persuasive essay in high school that argued that it ought to be considered science fiction.
Click to expand...

There's really no reason it has to be one or the other; many works are a salad of both, although often identifiably having more of one than the other. I would agree that Mountains is definitely sci-fi, although it has elements of horror. Conversely Predator is definitely horror, but with elements of sci-fi. Event Horizon seems to have both in relatively equal measure. I dimly recall an old film from way back in the days of embarrassing films, called Lifeforce, which was about vampires who do vampire-y things to typical victims; also, the vampires are aliens who came down to Earth from an orbiting spaceship.
 
commandlinegamer said:
I suppose Alien could have had a PG certificate instead of an R, if they'd cut the chestburst sequence, the xenomorph's mouth parts punching a hole in Parker's face, the sounds Lambert makes as she is killed and Ash's decapitation, but would it have been as good?
Click to expand...

Alien was filmed as it was originally written. The graphic stuff was part of the original work. The engine of the story's horror primarily lies in what exactly happens to the victims; so to achieve the greatest effect these things have to be shown.

At the Mountains of Madness, however, in line with all the rest of Lovecraft's work is not written with graphic violence and gore. Lovecraft's narrator pointedly describes the camp horror scene by avoiding describing it too much; the horror of the story lies in suggestion - in the fact that these ancient fossils came back to life and killed the scientists, not in precisely how they did it or precisely which organs or extremities they removed in exactly which fashion during the battle. It would really be a more accurate visual representation of the story's narrative style to be discretionary with the blood, rather than indulging in close-ups of ruptured viscera and torn flesh.

And that's basically why so many movies made from Lovecraft stories fail. The people making the movies are aware that Lovecraft is a "famous horror writer", and that it is in vogue to claim to be "inspired by" him; however, when they decide to turn his stories into film, they find that they don't actually find the stories scary. Or they do, but they don't know why. Or they even know why, but ultimately don't know how to evoke the same kind of horror in a visual medium that Lovecraft evokes through text. Whichever the case, the solution is always the same - they substitute body/slasher horror in place of the atmospheric horror, thus changing the flavor of the story. Hey, whatever works; but movies based on Lovecraft stories that have done this substitution end up being widely considered as simply not good movies - without exception as far as I'm aware.
 
Checkmite said:
Alien was filmed as it was originally written. The graphic stuff was part of the original work. The engine of the story's horror primarily lies in what exactly happens to the victims; so to achieve the greatest effect these things have to be shown.

At the Mountains of Madness, however, in line with all the rest of Lovecraft's work is not written with graphic violence and gore. Lovecraft's narrator pointedly describes the camp horror scene by avoiding describing it too much; the horror of the story lies in suggestion - in the fact that these ancient fossils came back to life and killed the scientists, not in precisely how they did it or precisely which organs or extremities they removed in exactly which fashion during the battle. It would really be a more accurate visual representation of the story's narrative style to be discretionary with the blood, rather than indulging in close-ups of ruptured viscera and torn flesh.

And that's basically why so many movies made from Lovecraft stories fail. The people making the movies are aware that Lovecraft is a "famous horror writer", and that it is in vogue to claim to be "inspired by" him; however, when they decide to turn his stories into film, they find that they don't actually find the stories scary. Or they do, but they don't know why. Or they even know why, but ultimately don't know how to evoke the same kind of horror in a visual medium that Lovecraft evokes through text. Whichever the case, the solution is always the same - they substitute body/slasher horror in place of the atmospheric horror, thus changing the flavor of the story. Hey, whatever works; but movies based on Lovecraft stories that have done this substitution end up being widely considered as simply not good movies - without exception as far as I'm aware.
Click to expand...
I nominated this for the clarity with which you dissect a difficult-to-convey topic, though I have little hope for it making the finals; it lacks the emotional punch that seems a requirement for that.

In addition, I completely agree with this analysis. Gore and detailed revelation in cinema are neither good nor bad in themselves (assuming the execution itself isn't bad). It is what I try to explain to my wife who simply will not believe me when I say that the gore and pain in the first Saw film are absolutely integral to the plot and, difficult as they may be to watch at times, what actually kicks that movie from being simply a good and scary horror flick to near greatness.

The sequels, on the other hand, lost the thread, and the gore and pain in those movies are put in for their own sake, resulting in progressively worse movies to the point that most of those sequels are not only bad but actually terrible.

Never show the monster is marvelous advice for the average or simply good writer/director (and is advice which Stephen King gives in his marvelous Danse Macabre, but which he far too often fails to heed himself). On the other hand, the truly gifted can ignore that advice, but only when they are aware they are doing so and have adequate reason to justify it.

It's like body mechanics for an athlete. Learn the basics and master them. If you're like most people, stick with them and you will do well. If you happen to be one of the great ones who, after long hours of arduous training and discovery, learns a more effective way, then go with it, but only do so knowingly, and never ever ever teach your revised mechanics to beginners or middling professionals.
 
Last edited:
Lovecraft fans have had to put with an awful lot of crappy film adaptations over the years. It seems that filmmakers sort of recognize the value of his material, but either don't know how to translate it to film or don't think viewers will take to it, so they mine it for ideas and nomenclature, and usually end up with a schlock film. Most of the attempts at filming Lovecraft straight are independent or amateur films and are usually admirable for the earnestness of their effort, but naturally lack the big-budget production.

The two films mentioned in the OP The Whisperer in Darkness and The Call of Cthulhu were made by the H.P. Lovecraft Historical Society (HPLHS) and, while done on small budgets, were labors of love and very enjoyable. I definitely recommend them.

I have a love-hate relationship with most of the Stuart Gordon/Brian Yuzna output (Re-Animator, From Beyond and Dagon). I've watched them all repeatedly, but always wish they were something more than they are. Dagon, which several posters have mentioned, is probably the best of the lot. It's actually based on "The Shadow Over Innsmouth." "Dagon" the story, is only a few pages long and is represented in the film by opening dream sequence. Despite a few cinematic liberties for the purpose of spectacle, it is by-and-large rather faithful to the plot.

Re-Animator is way too campy for my tastes (even though I own the deluxe 2-disc anniversary edition. Geez, what the hell is wrong with me?), although Lovecraft did in fact write it in a tongue-in-cheek manner and it was actually his idea of a spoof.

I prefer From Beyond to Re-Animator even though, due to "From Beyond" being a very short story, the entire story is covered in the film before the opening credits, so the rest of film is Gordon's own work.

The Lurking Fear (1994) stars Jeffery Combs but is not a Stuart Gordon film. It barely resembles the Lovecraft story, but it's a somewhat enjoyable movie, even if over-acted and melodramatic. There are plenty of creepy moments.

There was another version of the The Dunwhich Horror made in 2009 which is hard to find but definitely superior to the 1970 film (I always felt the talents of Ed Begley (Sr.) and Sam Jaffee were wasted in that one). The 2009 film features Jeffery Combs as Wilbur Whateley and believe or not, Dean Stockwell again (looking like he just stepped off the set of Quantum Leap), only this time as Dr. Henry Armitage. It's worth tracking down.

Some of the adaptations from the 1960s are quaint and enjoyable to watch, but still leave you wanting, especially if you love the stories and the moods they create. One example is Die, Monster, Die, ("The Colour Out of Space") with Boris Karloff, which isn't bad and certainly conveys feelings of madness and hopelessness. You can get Die, Monster, Die, and The Dunwich Horror (1970) on DVD as a double feature.

uke2se said:
Best Lovecraft movie IMO is "The Resurrected" aka "Shatterbrain", with Chris Sarandon as Charles Dexter Ward. It's pretty faithful to Lovecraft's original story, although the piece is moved to contemporary (80s) times.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. This, to my mind, is just about the only example of a feature film made by a well-known director (Dan O'Bannon) with established actors (Chris Sarandon) that is a truly faithful adaptation of a Lovecraft story ("The Case of Charles Dexter Ward"). Sarandon's portrayal of Ward is dead-on. Plus, the scenes in the underground laboratory are totally creepy and chilling. Although it is not a period piece, as uke2se pointed out, there is a scene set in the past that details the nefarious activities of Joseph Curwen (Ward's ancestor). The tragedy is that this film is almost impossible to find. I own it on VHS, and it was briefly released on DVD, but it is out of print.

I haven't yet seen the German The Colour Out of Space (Die Farbe) that was mentioned upthread. Netflix shows it as "availability unknown" so I'm planning on just buying it.
 
Last edited:
Checkmite said:
At the Mountains of Madness, however, in line with all the rest of Lovecraft's work is not written with graphic violence and gore. Lovecraft's narrator pointedly describes the camp horror scene by avoiding describing it too much
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that less is more: gore has its place, but often works better withough.

I suppose my concern is more that movies with adults as the target audience appeared to be viewed with disdain. The impression I'm getting is that an R or NC-17 seems to be a financial death sentence for a movie in the US. It's pretty rare that a film in the UK does poorly simply because it's rated 15 or 18.
 
Checkmite said:
And that's basically why so many movies made from Lovecraft stories fail. The people making the movies are aware that Lovecraft is a "famous horror writer", and that it is in vogue to claim to be "inspired by" him; however, when they decide to turn his stories into film, they find that they don't actually find the stories scary. Or they do, but they don't know why. Or they even know why, but ultimately don't know how to evoke the same kind of horror in a visual medium that Lovecraft evokes through text. Whichever the case, the solution is always the same - they substitute body/slasher horror in place of the atmospheric horror, thus changing the flavor of the story. Hey, whatever works; but movies based on Lovecraft stories that have done this substitution end up being widely considered as simply not good movies - without exception as far as I'm aware.
Click to expand...
I was reading Lovecraft from my early teens, and there were only ever two stories that actually frightened me - The Dreams in the Witch House and The Rats in the Walls. Both are genuinely creepy, neither I think would translate well to film.

Psi Baba said:
I haven't yet seen the German The Colour Out of Space (Die Farbe) that was mentioned upthread. Netflix shows it as "availability unknown" so I'm planning on just buying it.
Click to expand...
Now there's an interesting idea. How would you portray a colour that no-one on earth has seen in a movie?
 
Checkmite said:
Or they even know why, but ultimately don't know how to evoke the same kind of horror in a visual medium that Lovecraft evokes through text.
Click to expand...

I think a large part of the problem is that it's simply not possible to do this. The fundamental point of many of Lovecraft's stories is people going mad because they see things that aren't physically possible to see. Probably the easiest story to see this in is The Colour Out Of Space. The whole point is that the titular colour doesn't actually fall anywhere on the visible spectrum. It's not just something different or unusual, it's something that should be completely impossible for humans to experience, yet they do anyway. How can you show a colour that doesn't actually exist on film?

That's a recurring theme throughout his works. People don't go mad simply because a tentacled monster jumps out at them, they go mad because said monster is not actually physically impossible in some way and their brains simply can't cope with that. Lovecraft didn't just write about the unknown, he wrote about the unknowable and the mind's inability to handle inputs that it shouldn't be possible to have.

That's why Lovecraft films so rarely work. It doesn't matter how much you understand the stories or how good you are at making films, it's just not possible to put something that is impossible to see in a visual medium.
 
Cuddles said:
I think a large part of the problem is that it's simply not possible to do this. The fundamental point of many of Lovecraft's stories is people going mad because they see things that aren't physically possible to see. Probably the easiest story to see this in is The Colour Out Of Space. The whole point is that the titular colour doesn't actually fall anywhere on the visible spectrum. It's not just something different or unusual, it's something that should be completely impossible for humans to experience, yet they do anyway. How can you show a colour that doesn't actually exist on film?
Click to expand...
Make a black and white movie. :D
 
arthwollipot said:
Now there's an interesting idea. How would you portray a colour that no-one on earth has seen in a movie?
Click to expand...
I think they took an easy way out--the film is in black and white.

Cuddles said:
I think a large part of the problem is that it's simply not possible to do this. The fundamental point of many of Lovecraft's stories is people going mad because they see things that aren't physically possible to see. Probably the easiest story to see this in is The Colour Out Of Space. The whole point is that the titular colour doesn't actually fall anywhere on the visible spectrum. It's not just something different or unusual, it's something that should be completely impossible for humans to experience, yet they do anyway. How can you show a colour that doesn't actually exist on film?

That's a recurring theme throughout his works. People don't go mad simply because a tentacled monster jumps out at them, they go mad because said monster is not actually physically impossible in some way and their brains simply can't cope with that. Lovecraft didn't just write about the unknown, he wrote about the unknowable and the mind's inability to handle inputs that it shouldn't be possible to have.

That's why Lovecraft films so rarely work. It doesn't matter how much you understand the stories or how good you are at making films, it's just not possible to put something that is impossible to see in a visual medium.
Click to expand...
That is definitely a problem with filming Lovecraft. Still, one of the other aspects is that his method of horror is not, as you stated, derived from the mere appearance of a hideous creature, but most importantly, [lovecraftian italics]what that creature signifies[/lovecraftian italics]. And the characters go mad (or believe they are going mad) because they suddenly have knowledge that truly changes everything everyone believed about the world, and they must decided whether to inflict this knowledge on the rest of the world (which will more than likely simply result in others believing this guy has gone mad) or keeping the knowledge to himself, destroying any remaining evidence, and eventually actually going mad as a result. This would necessitate that a film treatment place more emphasis on the reactions of the characters than on action or visuals, although it's still important to maintain the appropriate creepy atmosphere. It's also critical that the filmmakers refrain from the trite approach of ending the film by leaving the viewer wondering if any of it was real or whether it was only in the protagonist's mind. That's always a let-down and a cheat, IMO, and in Lovecraft, the weird stuff really does happen. It's not simply imagined.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom