Did you ever see that classic horror movie from a few decades ago where a family decides to go live in this grand, remote building that has a long and mysterious history? The dad, mom, and kid are in high spirits and full of good humor when they drive up in their station wagon, but the building starts to take a toll on them and they slowly descend into madness. They have experiences that can’t be explained and which defy all logic. Eventually, they turn on each other as some invisible force seems destined to take their soul, if not their bodies. Father turns against son and wife, closeness is replaced by distance, relationships are wrecked, and it seems as if the only way out is to pay the ultimate price. Through it all, the building itself seems to be in control.
I’m not talking about Stanley Kubrick’s 1980 movie masterpiece The Shining, which was adapted from Stephen King’s 1977 novel. I’m actually talking about 1976’s Burnt Offerings, a movie that feels so similar to The Shining that it seems as if it were copying it outright. But the facts tell a different story, because Burnt Offerings actually came first, before the movie and before King’s book.
Technically, this is a haunted house story, but the haunting is psychological, not metaphysical. This movie could be a stage play in that there are very few special effects and the story is carried out with only a handful of actors in one location. If I’m being honest, I have to confess that this film is a little bit slow and long for me. At almost two hours, it moves at a glacial pace that was common for “serious” movies like this one in the seventies but that we’ve gotten a long way from today. I’m convinced that if this movie were remade for modern audiences, it would be produced by Blumhouse and would have a jump scare every eight minutes, and that the movie might be better for it. In comparing it to The Shining (which is impossible not to do), it comes across as a big yawn that has very little story to justify the running time. There are lots of scenes with people sitting around looking moody, or occasionally being mad at each other. It’s like Thanksgiving Dinner in movie form. I was surprised to hear the director state in the commentary that he cut 15 minutes from the first act. Praise be!
Nashville) who thrives in films like this. Their son is played by Lee Montgomery, the little boy from 1972’s rat horror film Ben. Playing the couple’s aged aunt is Bette Davis, star of the silver screen and Hollywood icon. Lastly, in much smaller parts, we’re treated to Burgess Meredith Rocky, Eileen Heckart (Heartbreak Ridge), and Dub Taylor (The Wild Bunch).
The cast is really the main reason to watch this movie. Oliver Reed is at all times smoldering, and I’m not just referring to his looks. He seems to be a caged animal, filled with violence waiting to explode outward and consume anything in his vicinity. Karen Black is vulnerable and motherly, but is also cold as ice when the script calls for it. Lastly, Bette Davis is Bette Davis, wonderful and charming in a role that requires her to go from glamorous and beautiful to decrepit over the running time of the film. It’s a brave and notable performance, because Davis is one of Hollywood’s true divas, an icon of a system that was completely the opposite of what this movie requests of her. I associate Davis, with her Transatlantic accent and sense of melodrama, with big performances (if you’ve ever seen 1939’s Dark Victory, you know what I’m talking about). She does get to do some big things in Burnt Offerings, but she gets to play with some subtle nuances that must have been both fun and challenging for someone of her pedigree. She has the biggest transformation of the film and is really wonderful.
Because of Dan Curtis’ resume, it makes total sense that this story often feels like a soap opera. He wrings gothic drama from this old, weathered house with a secret, and the running time is filled with character rather than plot. Everything is small in scale, micro instead of macro. As such, this would have been a tough sell to audiences in 1976 who were getting horror flicks like The Omen and Carrie, so it makes sense that this film was met with disinterest by the audiences of the day.
Burnt Offerings is a wonderful showcase for its actors, but it does feel overlong and poorly paced. It would be just another underperforming studio film if not for the Stephen King connection. By the way, there really is no mystery: Stephen King acknowledges his affection for the book and film version of this story and admits that it was a big influence on The Shining. In many ways, The Shining is a much better version of this story, but that’s not to take away from the wonderful work of Oliver Reed, Karen Black, Bette Davis, and Burgess Meredith, who really lend this movie any of the credibility that it has.
Get more Heath Holland at his blog Cereal at Midnight!
so what, Karen Black is the theme of the day? Patrick just posted a commentary on INVADERS FROM MARS (1986), featuring Karen Black.ReplyDelete
that being said, i've never heard of this movie, but i'm really interested
and i like the cover for the blu-rayDelete
It's serendipity! And I'm not talking about the Cusack/Beckinsale movie.Delete
Cool article, and I tend to agree with the points you make. The last minute of the movie makes it worth slogging through, however. It’s sensational.ReplyDelete
I'd like to add one single thing..ReplyDelete
people have pondered the last shot of Kubrick's The Shining for years. What does it mean??
Well, Burnt Offerings feature the exact same ending shot! And it's meaning is blatantly obvious..
Not gonna spoil it, but those of you who know will get it straight away ;)
To me, The Shining has more amusing/memorable moments, but the characters in Burnt Offerings are far more realistic and believable.ReplyDelete
If there's one thing King is terrible at, it's dialogues and character motivations.
Dude! You nailed it. King is a great story teller, but his characters are one dimensional and only serve to move the story along. Kubrick fixed this as didDelete
George Goldsmith for his screen adaptation for Children of the Corn.
F this movie? How about F you? Burnt Offerings is a great film that deserves better than this puerile review.ReplyDelete
Clever, how long did it take you to come up with that?Delete
About 30 seconds. :)Delete
This is a great classic move. The shining is insane. You don't need insanity to be scary.ReplyDelete
There is so much wrong with this review that I have neither the time nor the patience to respond to its many flaws. I will address just three items: rewatchability?---of course it is rewatchable, and I am watching it even now, while writing this, which will be my second viewing of it today. The slow pace of the film, and the story, is consistent with the best of English ghost stories---which, in their best versions, rely upon the slow build up of detail and of dread rather than the jump scare which seems to be all that the post-MTV generation can handle these days. You should acquaint yourself with some of the ghost stories of Robert Aickman, perhaps the greatest practitioner of the form in the 20th century (and far more elegant than little Stevie King) and then, having done that as prep, revisit Burnt Offerings.ReplyDelete
I believe King ripped Burnt Offerings off. Way too similar, down the the snapshot pictures at the end of both movies.ReplyDelete