Eye of the Devil / 13 (1966) ***

Shades of The Innocents (1961), The Wicker Man (1973) and The Omen (1976), but lacking the suspense of any, leading roles woefully miscast, supporting roles, conversely, brimming with inspired casting including the debut of Sharon Tate (Valley of the Dolls, 1967) and a mesmerising role for David Hemmings (Blow-Up, 1967)  Any attempts at subtlety were dumped when the original more intriguing title of 13, which turns out to have more than one meaning, was dumped (except in some foreign markets) in favor of the giveaway designation of Eye of the Devil. Despite embracing a web of sinister legend, it lurches too quickly into full-on demonic horror.

French count Phillippe (David Niven) is called away unexpectedly from the Parisian high life to deal with a crisis in his vineyard. When his son Jacques (Robert Duncan) starts sleepwalking in his absence, his wife Catherine (Deborah Kerr) decamps with daughter Antoinette (Suky Appleby) to the family pile, a huge millennium-old castle. The count’s sister Estell (Flora Robson) fears her arrival. Villagers fear Phillippe, doffing caps when he passes.

Meanwhile, Catherine encounters or witnesses strange goings-on. Archer Christian (David Hemmings) shoots dead a dove which is later offered to unknown gods by his sister Odile (Sharon Tate) in a chamber filled with men in black robes. Later, Odile changes a toad into a dove and hypnotises Catherine into almost falling off a parapet. A quietly spoken priest (Donald Pleasance) offers no succor. The number thirteen could refer to the day of an annual local festival or a ceremony involving thirteen men, twelve of whom dance around the other. In a forest Catherine is trapped by men in black robes, then drugged and imprisoned.

Meanwhile, her husband remains grimly fatalistic, gripped by torpor, except when roused to whip Odile. Generation after generation, going back over a thousand years, the head of the household has come to a sticky end and without explanation it appears Phillipe expects a similar outcome. .

It doesn’t take you long to realise devilry is afoot. It’s a pagan castle, it transpires, a “fortress of heresy.” After three years of poor grape harvest, the earth demands a sacrifice. Where the victim in The Wicker Man is an innocent outsider lured to a remote island, the count accepts his destiny even as his wife struggles to prevent his death. Dramatically, the later film has the edge, the victim struggling against fate rather than a mere observer. That Catherine is powerless somehow doesn’t bring the dramatic fireworks you might expect.

What the posters conceal is that the film was made in black-and-white – the last MGM picture not to be in color – and this is a photo of Sharon Tate as she appeared in magisterial and beguiling form.

There’s a curiosity about the casting of Deborah Kerr (The Gypsy Moths, 1969). This most repressed of actors, as if a veil has been lifted, empowered to scream and batter against doors and race around, seems to drain the movie of energy. She just seems laughably bonkers rather than intense and empathetic. For someone whose performance is generally minimal, who exists in the margins, it seems almost perverse to force her to go so over-the-top.

Perhaps such unusual verbal and physical activity was deemed essential to counter the inactivity, the virtual sleepwalking, of the rest of the cast. While looking pained, David Niven (The Extraordinary Seaman (1969) can’t quite capture the intensity, the personal devastation, the role requires. David Hemmings as the silent archer and especially Sharon Tate as the trance-inducing magician, steal the show, investing their characters with little emotion, and yet, visually, as if mere costumed performers, present the most vivid incarnations.

From an audience perspective, it’s hard to root for Catherine since it’s obvious she is in no mortal danger. Like The Wicker Man, the audience is there in an observatory capacity, but unlike the Scottish policeman the victim attracts little sympathy. There’s not real

It’s a surprising backward step for director J. Lee Thompson after the superb Return of the Ashes (1965) which was chock-full of suspense and interesting characters. After an atmospheric opening, it turns uneven as he falls into the trap of following the wrong character. Screenwriters Dennis Murphy (The Sergeant, 1968) and  Robin Estridge (Escape from Zahrain, 1962) adapted the latter’s acclaimed novel Day of the Arrow, written under the pseudonym Philip Loraine. So perhaps he can be blamed for shifting the investigative focus from Catherine’s ex-lover to Catherine herself.

I was surprised to see Deborah Kerr take on such a role and that is a story in itself which I’ll address tomorrow.

Unknown's avatar

Author: Brian Hannan

I am a published author of books about film - over a dozen to my name, the latest being "When Women Ruled Hollywood." As the title of the blog suggests, this is a site devoted to movies of the 1960s but since I go to the movies twice a week - an old-fashioned double-bill of my own choosing - I might occasionally slip in a review of a contemporary picture.

7 thoughts on “Eye of the Devil / 13 (1966) ***”

  1. I’ve tried watching this several times because it looks like it had potential but just feels..off, like two wildly different takes on the same source material stitched together with monstrous results. Kerr and Niven in particular just look uncomfortable and it bleeds all over their performances. Hemmings and Tate look as though they at least belong in the moment but neither has the screen presence to anchor the movie. It’s an interesting artifact of Hollywood desperately grappling with a cultural and generational seismic shift but not particularly watchable. Hats off to you for sitting through it.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Well, it’s all of that, but it just about holds together though Niven’s lack of interest in his fate is dramatically off-key. thematically and visually Tate and Hemmings seem spot-on. Not quite so gnerationally seismic as both Niven and Kerr had sizeable comedic hits a vouple of years later and Kerr was superb in Gypsy Moths.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. It seems the first mistake made was hiring pseudo witch Alex Saunders and wife Maxine as occult film advisors. Or was it originally naming film 13? There’s a nod to Swan Lake by using name Odille. I liked the opening montage, very Bergman’esque… and the camera certainly loved Sharon Tate. The survival of sacrificial oriented, ritual practicing fertility cults is real, but the way it’s depicted here is pure Hollywood. The devil wasn’t in the details here, but your critique was devilishly awesome.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thanks. Didn’t realise Saunders was involved though he was a bit too heavy with hocus pocus in his witchcraft film. I preferred the original title because in the film that had two possibilites whereas Eye of the Devil gave the game away. Certainly an interesting examination of cult and ritual.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. I rewatched this on you tube a few weeks ago, and am still cogitating about it; there are some striking moments, notably Tate, and the vibe is very Wicker Man, expect it doesn’t play out right at all, and ends up more like Hardy Boys than Dennis Wheatley….

    Liked by 1 person

    1. A very good comparison. It just goes awry. My guess is the structure is to blame. But very Wicker Man with Tate and Hemmings. Niven just looks baffled as to why his character would entertain such nonsense. Nice touch at the end with the boy retrieving his heirloom.

      Like

Leave a comment

Discover WordPress

A daily selection of the best content published on WordPress, collected for you by humans who love to read.

The Atavist Magazine

by Brian Hannan

WordPress.com News

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.