A Mansão do Dr. Caligari

I suppose, strange sounds fair to define this film, reminding more Psycho than The Cabinet of doctor Caligary.

But the mansion and Glynis Johns are the good points of a movie who seems adaptation, free, of course, of Cehov short story.

A young woman becomes prisoner in house who she expected help.

A strange doctor explores, in direct, profound manner, the life of his presumed guests becoming patients. The end is a sort of return to Expressionist masterpiece.

Sure, difficult to judge it and, comparing with the last version, maybe just a reasonable work. But the term eccentric just works in this case, with all, good and bad senses.

This is one strange movie. It's been unavailable for a very long time and residing in something of a limbo until this welcome DVD release at an equally welcome low price. Basically, "The Cabinet of Caligari" has nothing to do with the famous 1919 silent movie expect for re-using the title, but is based on a thriller story written by the legendary Robert Bloch. It's hard to know how to describe this film, but comparing it to an extended episode of the Twilight Zone or the Outer Limits would be a good start - it has exactly the same stagy TV-like appearance, over wordy and deliberately obtuse script, and earnest (if rather hammy) performances.

The film starts with the heroine Jane (Glynis Johns) speeding blissfully along in a sports car, before coming to an unexpected halt due to a flat tyre. The motives or origins of this car journey are never explained, but don't worry, this is just the beginning of the disorientation that the movie is going to throw at you. Seeking help at a large house, Jane is welcomed inside and meets a handful of strange characters, all of whom appear helpful and pleasant. However, time passes and Jane begins to realise that she is being dissuaded from leaving, in fact she soon finds that it is actually impossible to leave the house and grounds. Presiding over the estate is a mysterious figure known as Caligari, who (with a hilarious hybrid accent) questions and confuses Jane, and generally menaces her in various ways. Jane begins to get more and more afraid as days go by, before losing control completely as the film's several shock twists start to kick in.

What to make of it all....? In a way, the film fails on a lot of levels due to the lack of realism of Jane's predicament. The casting of Glynis Johns as Jane works for me, as she has a very appealing vulnerability, but the script she is given really lets the character down. Jane never explains or expounds upon her feelings in the situation she is in, and therefore, some very obvious questions such as "Who are you all?" and "Why are you keeping me here?" never get asked or answered! Most of the time I was screaming at Jane to just confront her captors and demand some kind of explanation, but she simple drifts around the house engaging in rhetorical conversational ping-pong with the other "guests", with nearly everybody speaking in cryptic riddles like some low budget re-hash of "Last Year at Marienbad". But a lot of the situations she finds herself in are pretty odd, and there is a surreal quality about all the proceedings that works quite well, with some very unconventional filmic techniques thrown in at important moments. Although I couldn't shake the sense that Jane really wasn't trying that hard to get out of the place which did blow the mood somewhat.

However, having said all this, the final few minutes of the film contain the big twist that goes a long was to explain this very odd state of affairs...something which I cannot spoil for you here. I really regret that so many reviews of this film have given away the ending, as it must have been a very odd experience to watch it with no idea of the explanation...sadly I knew the ending in advance as well. But it does make for a worthwhile second run through of the whole film - if you can face another 100 mins of rambling nonsense and slightly whacky psychedelic effects - to see it in the light of what you learn at the end. The film is in black and white Cinemascope and looks gorgeous in full widescreen. The sets and imagery are pretty basic, but the cinematographer does what he can with selective lighting and weird angles.

To sum up, the film works best for fans of the two TV shows mentioned above. It's clever, but nowhere near as important as it thinks it is. I have to say though, that the DVD cover is a total knockout. You also get a full screen version to watch (don't - it ruins it) and a clunky trailer. Not bad for the price. A collector's curio.

What was Robert Bloch thinking when he wrote this? As weird as the character's interactions are (no understandable motivations), the dialogue is full of dramatic clichés out of any context, like clips from a soap opera. Not a very thrilling blend for a horror movie. The original 1920 movie involved mesmerism and somnambulism: this film does both - it will hypnotise you into sleep immediately, even in the light of day. However, if you can stay awake, the story does have some dramatic impact, and the acting is fine throughout. The twist ending was done one better in a very similar 1950's EC comics (ie Tales from the Crypt) where the woman is cured but starts to have a relapse that cycles her back to the beginning of the story (a la "Dead of night").

The were some very talented people involved with the making of this motion picture. However most of them, actors , production staff, and and the technicians,had a stronger background in television production than in the movies.Perhaps this why it has the look and feel of a padded TV movie. This was producer, director Roger Kay's only venture into a theater released production. All the rest of his work as a producer, director, and writer was in television.Credited screenplay writer Robert Bloch was so unhappy with many changes made in his script by Kay that he attempted to have his name removed from the screen credits. The writers guild did not permit it.Apparently the problem was that Bloch saw it as a true horror film and Kay directed it as a film about the nightmares of insanity.

Glynis Johns handles the staring role as best she can and gives a well rounded performance as the confused and terrified Jane Lindstrom. Dan O'Herlihy really hams it up as the the ruthless and emotionally brutal Caligari but given the circumstances of the character,his over the top performance was called for. Constance Ford played the cool , aloft, and bitchy Christine with her usual aplomb. She could due this kind of role in her sleep.

In a 1981 interview Glynis Johns talked about her cute and sweet persona in film ans television. She briefly mentioned Caligari, She said that she was 39 years old at the time the movie was made and didn't feel comfortable with the seduction scene so a body double was used for the leg and pantie shots

Dick Davalos said the final script was much different than the one he originally read for, particularly the ending. But that is not unusual in movies.If the movie is a hit then no one gripes if not then everyone blames the screenplay.

Cabinet of Caligari is an okay movie that could have been a great deal better. It's worth a look but it is not a memorable film.

I had originally seen this movie at the age of fifteen; it continues to make a deep impression upon me. Though the plot does seem to move rather slowly by today's standards, it remains an amazing story of a young girl who has decided to come into touch with herself. Jane's validity depends upon her own understanding of reality versus fantasy. I am fortunate to have explored, through the DVD, the pleasures and horrors, as she leads the path that ultimately forces her to confront her inner fears. This "remake" may go beyond the original, but still exemplifies the importance of the caring and needs that we need to provide to our own. We are their caregivers. I was especially impressed by Constance Ford's role.