BY DAWN DABELL
A
subject which seems to rear its head more and more in today’s society is
paedophilia. It feels like every other week brings with it some story of a TV
star, singer, film star or MP who has preyed upon young and vulnerable victims
for their sexual gratification. That’s not counting the number of domestic
cases or the growing problem of online abuse and degradation against minors.
Thankfully the culprits are in a minority, but such stories - when they break -
send ripples of shame and outrage throughout the journalistic world.
Film-makers
have been tackling this most difficult of subjects for longer than people
realise. One example is Hammer’s Never
Take Sweets From A Stranger (1960), which was largely dismissed by critics
when released, but is actually a very well-executed attempt which highlights the
horrors of child molestation. If nothing else, it is worth watching just to see
Hammer serving up a rare and stark ‘message’ picture. There were a number of other ‘60s and ‘70s
films featuring adult males preying on young girls. David Greene’s I Start Counting (1969), Sidney Hayers’ Assault (1971) and Sidney Lumet’s The Offence (1973) spring to mind as
front-runners in this once-taboo sub-genre. In 1971, Hayers directed another
film featuring the theme of child molestation: Revenge, starring Joan Collins, James Booth and Kenneth Griffith.
Like Lumet’s The Offence, Revenge doesn’t focus on the victims but
instead on the suspected culprit and, more interestingly, the victims’ parents
who turn to vigilantism to satisfy their thirst for revenge.
Following
the release of suspected paedophile and murderer Seely (Kenneth Griffith) in a
gritty north-of-England town, the relatives of his last two victims decide to
take the law into their own hands. Pub landlord Jim Radford (James Booth), his
son Lee (Tom Marshall) and friend Harry (Ray Barrett) plot to kidnap Seely and
beat a confession out of him in the cellar of the pub. Later, when Jim’s wife
Carol (Joan Collins) learns what they’re up to, she too joins in with the
scheme.
The
plan quickly spirals out of control and everyone realises three disturbing
facts: first, they have committed a crime themselves and are therefore no
better than the villain they aim to punish; second, they cannot be certain they
have inflicted their revenge on the right man, as no confession is forthcoming;
lastly, there is no way to undo what they have done. How can they ensure their
target stays silent? The obvious way is to kill him – but none of the
vigilantes is completely comfortable with carrying out the deed.
Anyone
who has seen the film will be surprised to learn it was heavily promoted as a
horror film during its theatrical run, especially outside the UK. Alternative
titles in the US included Behind The
Cellar Door, Inn Of The Terrified
People and Terror From Under The
House, all of which create an impression of terrifying and gruesome
goings-on. Even those who realised they were going to see a vigilante movie
probably expected the film to concentrate heavily on exploitation elements, but
in reality such aspects are pretty tame. The only scene of real extended
violence sees Jim furiously beating Seely but it is fairly restrained by genre
standards, and as for sex and nudity there are just a couple of understated
scenes which do little to get viewers feeling hot under the collar. The whole
thing was rather misleadingly marketed: even the theatrical posters at the time
trumped-up the non-existent horror elements, with one poster (for the Terror From Under The House edition)
carrying a disclaimer which boldly declared: “Free with every admission! You
must accept Free Screaming Teeth of Terror as a warning the TERROR FROM
UNDER THE HOUSE might just SCARE YOU TO DEATH!†Additional taglines warned: “If
you look in the basement… be ready to scream!†and “You may never dare go in
the basement again!†Such statements don’t fit the flavour of the on-screen
action. They are, frankly, complete lies. The film provides a few shocks for
viewers but not in the horror sense - this is a melodrama with an ambiguous
moral dilemma at its core, and its shocks are rooted in man’s cruelty to fellow
man.
A
possible explanation for the bizarre alternative titles bestowed on the film is
that another 1971 movie called Revenge
was made starring Shelley Winters, Stuart Whitman and Bradford Dillman. To further add to the
confusion, the other film shares common threads with this one: a daughter dying
under tragic circumstances while the man believed responsible is held captive
in the cellar by her family. The American Revenge
was a made-for-TV release.
The
British Revenge works well because it
takes primarily normal, upstanding characters and pushes them to moral and
emotional limits. The man they believe is guilty of attacking their daughters
is released by the police, leaving them with no sense of justice or catharsis
over the crime inflicted against their beloved. Until one has experienced such
heartbreak, one cannot say with certainty what extremes one would go to in
order to get justice. Booth encapsulates this dilemma perfectly: first, we see
him as a reluctant conspirator taking the law into his own hands; later, he
becomes consumed with hatred, unleashing his fury by beating the suspect nearly
to death. The distressed family members become as sadistic as the supposed
child molester – a vicious cycle gathers momentum and cannot be stopped.
Kenneth
Griffith is splendid as the suspected paedophile. After being captured by the
vigilantes on suspicion of the rape and murder of an innocent young girl, we in
the audience only begin to learn about him as a character after he has been beaten, so in many ways we view him as a victim.
We witness his kidnapping, see him beaten and left for dead, watch his
attackers treat him like dirt and discuss how to dispose of him – there is
considerable doubt and ambiguity about whether he is guilty of the crime, and
we are left to ponder if his captors have made a mistake. Credit to Griffith
for playing the role with just enough bashful nervousness to create this doubt.
Even his tormentors show uncertainty at times, slowly realising they might have
vented their rage on the wrong man. The Radfields’ other daughter discovers
what her family has done and becomes sympathetic towards Seely, showing that
she thinks they have become monsters in their quest for justice. The sometimes
hammy Collins gives a very decent, restrained performance as a woman who feels
indirectly responsible for the murder of her step-daughter. There’s also an
interesting subplot showing her rather sordid affair with her own step-son.
Hayers
directs the film with a firm hand, keeping things interesting and engrossing
without tipping into total sensationalism. He later reteamed with some of the
crew, including writer John Kruse and cinematographer Ken Hodges, for the
similarly confrontational Assault (aka
In The Devil’s Garden), another
overlooked but worthwhile film about an attack on a young girl. One mis-step in
Revenge is the score by Eric Rogers
which seems a trifle out of place. Rogers mainly scored comedy films, and
doesn’t quite convey enough seriousness to complement the drama here.
Throughout the film major characters shirk responsibility and try to make others take the blame for what they have done. Jim refuses to take any blame for his violent treatment of Seely (he dismissively claims hehad to do it); Harry, who instigates the whole abduction in the first place, refuses to get drawn into the ensuing mess and finds reasons to skip town; Lee struggles to be intimate with his girlfriend, blaming his woes on the Seely situation, but it transpires he is sexually involved with his step-mum and is perfectly able to ‘perform’ with her; Carol is initially horrified at the idea of beating the suspect, but joins in with vigour and pleasure after she convinces herself of his guilt.
Although it’s not exploitation nor horror as suggested by its own marketing campaign, Revenge is nevertheless a well-made melodrama with adult themes. Fans of Booth, Collins, revenge thrillers or kitchen-sink melodramas, should bump it up their watch-list pronto.
(Revenge is issued as part of ‘the British Film’ collection, a five-year plan by Network Distributing to release over 450 classic British movies which have so far been denied a clean, crisp release. More gems should be imminent - I currently have my fingers and toes crossed that Deadly Strangers (1975), another Hayers gem, featuring Hayley Mills and Simon Ward, will make the cut!)
CLICK HERE TO ORDER