Delirio de pasiones

This is one experience I'm not likely ever to forget, it is truly unsettling. One of the most ferocious, savage and disturbing films I have ever seen, and brilliant cinematic art on top of it.

Ambitious reporter has himself admitted to a mental hospital in order to solve a murder there. He poses as an incestuous brother to his 'sister' and real-life stripper girlfriend, and once inside gets to talk to all three witnesses to the murder. Gradually, though, his own mind starts to disintegrate ...

Was there ever an asylum like Samuel Fuller's? Hope not. One of the inmates is singing the Factotum Aria from 'Barber of Seville' around the clock, another savours the words "I am impotent and I like it", but they are the sanest ones. Of the three witnesses one imagines himself to be a general at Gettysburg but suddenly shifts and claims to be a Communist in reaction to "my folks (that) fed my bigotry for breakfast and ignorance for dinner" in a long pathetic virtuoso solo by actor James Best. One, a young black man, dresses as a Ku Klux Klan member, advocating white supremacy, expressing his loathing for blacks ("Oh, they're alright as entertainers, but ..."), and the third, a Nobel prize winner, has retreated into infantilism.

'Shock Corridor', which obviously turned out to be a cult favourite, directed by maverick independent filmmaker and former journalist Samuel Fuller, makes no excuses for itself, and its style is swaggeringly confident, blending pulp and downright tawdriness with high melodrama and noir, in unforgettable, dramatically lit images. Sometimes it's plain silly in its excessive irony, at other times searing in its empathy, and probably the most funny moments are those when the reporter (a wonderful Peter Breck) once more asks his increasingly absurd and irrelevant question, "Who killed Sloane in the kitchen?", and when he finally learns who, he forgets about it immediately! I cannot recommend this film enough, it is one of the great works of art of American cinema. No less.

A journalist, determined to expose a murder, gets himself thrown into the mental hospital in which it occurred. While there, he has to fight to retain his sanity. This exposé and the murder, they're McGuffins. The film's biggest flaw is that these McGuffins are left so untouched (does Barrett actually believe that anything he might prove by interviewing mental patients will stand up in court?), which makes the allegorical part of the film stand out a bit too much. Fortunately the allegory is powerful and is well done. Amazingly, these major criticisms of American society, delivered in monologues by three very good performers, exist in this film, made in 1963. The tightness of the post-WWII generation was weakening a bit at the time, but the kind of things that are expressed here, exposing the paranoia and bigotry and the belligerence of the American hoi polloi, it's daring. I suppose it was allowed because this was obviously meant to be an exploitative B-movie and play to a small audience. Shock Corridor is probably most famous for its style, and that fame is very much deserved. The harsh lighting is gorgeous, as is all of the cinematography, in general. The choppy editing, probably influenced by the French New Wave that was taking place at the time, is also rather good. The acting is adequate. It's certainly not an actors' film, and the leads are easily forgettable. However, some of the inmates give good performances. Hari Rhodes as Trent is probably the most memorable. He plays the first black student at a Southern university (not the historical one, but a fictional composite). He was driven insane by the bigotry around him, and now he thinks he's a Grand Dragon of the KKK (and he thinks he invented it). The film does fall into that mental hospital movie of giving all the inmates wacky problems. I don't know of any earlier mental hospital movies offhand, so maybe this set that trend. In this film, it's not nearly as annoying as it is in movies like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, which was, despite Shock Corridor, the parent of movies like Girl Interrupted and The Princess and the Warrior. 9/10.

Shock Corridor is one of Samuel Fuller's wildest works, a deeply personal examination of insanity by the premier exponant of 50's and 60's Pulp Cinema. I prefer "The Naked Kiss", but "Shock Corridor" certainly stands as a unique and memorable work. It is silly, no downright ludicrous at times, as seen today, but this must have been strong stuff when it came out in 1963. It boldly takes on such topics as incest, racism and cold war paranoia. Not sensitively, mind you, yet quite boldly!

Every scene in this movie seems to be played at fever pitch, and I have to say I believe its been over-rated critically, due to the auteur theory run amok, but I do admire Fuller's gutsiness and directorial skill. If only his skills as a scenarist and dialogue writer were commensurate! He did, however, certainly know how to pull an intense performance out of an actor. Breck and Towers are rather ridiculously intense at times, as a matter of fact, though forgivably so, as they are instruments of their director and express his style perfectly. Hari Rhodes, who people of my generation may remember from the tv series, "Daktari", gives a terrific supporting performance, as does the memorable Larry Tucker, who later became a Hollywood screenwriter and producer.

The striking thing about this film is just how unnervingly barmy the characters are, and even more amazing is just how they seem so apt with Sam Fuller's sledgehammer direction. Written, directed and produced by Fuller it weaves a cautionary tale of how faking madness just might bring about the downfall of ones own sanity, and here it begs the question of if the price of fame has no boundaries to those who clamour for glory ?. The film cleverly manages to make the viewer think about the thin line between sanity and insanity and this is shot with such style it lingers long in the memory after the credits role. Some great sequences allied with clever switches to {almost surreal} color make this more than a curiosity piece because of the directors "American Primitive" reputation.

Interestingly dark 8/10.

How we should read this movie?

Is it really important to know why a famous psychiatrist could have helped the journalist to get into the asylum? Is it really important to have a realistic, tied up scenario in this movie?

I don't think so, and what really comes out of it is a wild political message that ultimately depicts the madness of the outside, normal society, and how it deals with everything that is different. To me, the director's intent is to tell us how sick our society is (at least, "was", at his time) and, for that, he chose the metaphor of madness, and very specific characters to tell us the message. The main characters are the mad guys, and the journalist and the crime are only excuses to lead us into this outside world of rejected people. The scenario structure seems to be rather simple and rounded as any political speech, so after we enter the asylum, we are presented to the mad characters (the war veteran, the black guy, the physicist), one by one. The only exception to this straightforward scenario line is the journalist girlfriend, but her appearance shouldn't have a different direction (in the critical, political sense), and she gives us a really funny, sexy, and ridiculous scene where the hollywoodean love is ridiculized (she is performing her daily striptease, at the same time we know she's suffering from love, note how the scene is shown in a cold, distant and downward camera).

Definitely, it is a political-pulp-fiction. As such, a good movie.

Just don't try to see it as a standard Hollywood movie.