Friday, October 01, 2010

(you guessed it) Night of the Demon Analysis

Faithful readers, herein you will find my critical analysis of Jacques Tourneur’s venerable 1957 classic, “Night of the Demon”. Like my colleagues, I will be using the framework of Noel Carroll for this analysis, as he nobly outlined in “The Philosophy of Horror”. Though it will certainly greatly resemble the majority of posts on this subject, I humbly submit my own interpretation of several elements of the film which may or may not appear in adjacent posts.
A. Definitionally speaking, “Night of the Demon” (hereafter NOTD) would fit in Carroll’s general framework for horror. The film features a monster, the Demon, which is both physically threatening and disgusting, both physically and categorically impure, and also is not known to exist within the universe of the fiction. Since the genre of art-horror “is primarily identified in virtue of danger and impurity”, then NOTD would definitely fit by virtue of its dangerous and impure focal monster (Carroll 29).
B. NOTD certainly engenders an emotional response in viewers that would classify as the emotion of art-horror. The Demon is quite fearsome (regardless of cinematic shortcomings in delivering his image to us) and elicits horror from the characters of the fiction, with whom we as viewers are meant to relate in some way. Carroll speaks of the emotion of art-horror in terms of fear and repulsion, which would in turn generate some sort of feeling of physical agitation. I cannot speak for the reader of this post, but this author was quite repulsed and terrified by the thought of a prehistoric demon which would hunt down individuals (it wasn’t just out for blood, it was out for YOUR blood). That really is unsettling, for even the most cynical and jaded patron of horror fiction. This emotional cue can be found in every character of the film (including Karswell in the end). If a work of fiction’s status as art-horror depends on the emotion it effects in audiences, then NOTD would certainly fit very well. This film also fits H.P. Lovecraft’s idea of horror, which focuses on the cosmic fear of the unknown. There cannot be much more of an object of cosmic fear than that of ancient Demons. The realm of demons and the supernatural certainly elicits feelings of cosmic fear, dread, and fear of the unknown.
C. Carroll offers several typical narrative structures which are commonly found in works of art-horror, with special attention given to the ‘complex discovery plot’, which has necessary components of onset, discovery, confirmation, and confrontation. Carroll was not so bold as to say that this structure was of definitive importance for a work of art-horror, and he allowed many different permutations of these components. One other basic plot type would be the over-reacher plot (think Frankenstein). It would seem to this author that NOTD would not fit the complex discovery plot, but it also does not fit the over-reacher plot (though it certainly retains some thematic material). The primary drama in the film is that of confirmation, so NOTD would be in the complex discovery plot family, perhaps being more of an onset/discovery/confrontation. In terms of the onset, NOTD implements a phasing of the onset process: we as viewers are far ahead of the characters in terms of knowledge about the monster. There is definitely a drama of discovery throughout the film: Holden spends the entire film investigating the odd nature of the cult, and in particular the Demon mentioned in the Runes. Ms. Harrington also undergoes an investigation, under the conviction that something supernatural is at the source of trouble. Though Holden does not directly say that he believes in the Demon, he does admit to believing things about the sinister practices of Karswell that indicate something supernatural is at work. What is innovative about NOTD is that there is no distinct confirmation of the Demon’s existence for the characters in the fiction. Even when Karswell is seemingly killed by the Demon, Holden refuses to confirm such a fact. The characters are left in much the same state of hesitation as at the beginning of the drama, having only added Dr. Holden to their ranks. Being a drama of discovery, several related questions frame the plot: What killed Harrington? Is Karswell really a black magician? Can the Demon be stopped?
D. Carroll offers a basic formula for calculating the most suspenseful scene in a given work of horror (philosophers, don’t be frightened by the mention of formulas and calculations…). If in a given scene, the morally evil outcome is more probable than the morally good outcome, then some level of suspense can be found. Obviously, the more you tip the balance of probabilities, the more suspense you have. In NOTD, clearly the most suspenseful sequence is when Holden breaks into Karswell’s manor to steal the translation of the ancient runes. First of all, breaking into the home of a black magician who frequently talks with demons naturally tips the balance of probability into the BAD range. Secondly, the further Holden gets into the manor, the more eerie and threatening the environment becomes (highlighted by the ‘interdimensional being’ whose hand grabs the banister in the front hall, but vanishes when the camera places the same area in the field of view. This scene still greatly disturbs this author). The climax of this suspense is when Karswell’s ‘minor demon’ changes shape from a cat into a puma, attacking Holden. We are left in a hopeless situation, until Karswell walks in just in time to save Holden. This sequence is not done yet! The suspense rises to a fever pitch once again when Holden exits the manor through the foggy woods, since he must ‘go out the way he came in’. When in the forest, it becomes clear that the Demon makes its home there, and that Holden is being chased by a Demon in the woods! The morally evil outcome (Holden is killed by an evil Demon who is chasing him) becomes much more likely than the good outcome (Holden makes it out alive). Though we are ultimately relieved when Holden escapes safe and sound, the audience had endured a sequence of intense suspense.
E. Speaking thematically, there is not much of a moral element to NOTD, except to point out that dabbling in the black arts, specifically summoning demons, is bad for your health. There is certainly a political theme woven into NOTD, involving the often clashing beliefs of science and the supernatural. Holden is the figure of science and skepticism: he believes nothing that cannot be verified, including what occurs in the mind of people. His life’s mission is debunking myths and amassing knowledge about the verifiable world. In the end, Holden learns the hard way that there are more things in heaven and earth than were dreamt of in his philosophy. In a way, all discovery plots pit the forces of rationality against the forces of the unexplained, so NOTD is not different in this respect.
F. Jacques Tourneur, as per his norm, used several directorial methods to heighten a sense of fear, dread, and a sense of unknown terror. The extensive use of shadows (as seen in the suspenseful break-in sequence) heightens the fear that anything may be lurking behind every corner. Also, the sequence involving Karswell calling a windstorm was very convincing, and quite disturbing. Tourneur showed us a windstorm, a real one. The use of distorted point of view shots (such as when Holden watches Karswell leave the library) help establish a dreamlike (or nightmarelike) atmosphere, which heightens the sense of dread being experienced by the characters. As usual, this is a dark, spooky, and atmospheric outing from Tourneur.
G. A final note: everybody seems to say that ‘showing the demon ruined the movie’. I would vehemently argue against this. Despite the shortcoming in the quality of the demon effect, the plot function is greatly enhanced. We are shown right up front that demonic power is real, it is evil, and it cannot be stopped. Knowing these things adds to the drama of the work. Fantastic hesitation does nothing but play into the hands of the Demon, in the end. So, Tourneur was wrong, the producers were right. They had to show us the demon.

Robert

No comments: