Connect with us

Editorials

‘Curtains’ – An Unsung Movie from the Golden Age of Slashers

Published

on

Snowy Slashers curtains 1983

Horror fans have Canada to thank for a lot of their favorite movies from the ‘70s and ‘80s. Black Christmas, Prom Night, Happy Birthday to Me, My Bloody Valentine — all these fright flicks and more were in fact made in Canada. And for a lot of these vintage movies, they were produced in the Great White North because of an enticing tax incentive. It was all part of a desire to fire up the country’s movie industry. And so long as these potential productions were chiefly shot and edited in Canada, as well as starred mostly Canadian actors, the movies’ costs were up to 100% tax deductible. Like those before him, producer Peter R. Simpson (Prom Night III: The Last Kiss) acted on this attractive business offer, though his timing could have been better. By the time Curtains came out in 1983, Canada’s most significant era of “B” movies was all but coming to an end, and slashers weren’t exactly hard to come by.

The idea of a banshee had reportedly been thrown around in the early days of Curtains, but ultimately this 1983 movie became a whodunit. The story begins with famous actor Samantha Sherwood (Samantha Eggar, The Brood) preparing for the lead role in a melodrama called Audra. With the help of her friend and director, Jonathan Stryker (John Vernon, Killer Klowns from Outer Space), Samantha is checked into a mental hospital. It’s all part of her method acting, but Samantha’s stay is longer than originally planned. Nevertheless, the show must go on.

Audra is eventually put back in production, and Stryker needs someone to play the namesake now that Samantha is “unavailable.” A group of actresses is then invited to a secluded mansion by Stryker, where only one of them will be awarded the highly coveted part. Among them is comedian Patti (Lynne Griffin, Black Christmas), ballerina Laurian (Anne Ditchburn), musician Tara (Sandee Currie, Terror Train), ice skater Christie (Lesleh Donaldson, Happy Birthday to Me), and veteran actor Brooke (Linda Thorson). Another candidate was invited, Amanda (Deborah Burgess), but she never shows up on account of her fatal encounter with the movie’s masked antagonist.

The road to completing 1983’s Curtains was not without its bumps. While filming commenced in Ontario in 1980, the shoot was shut down for about a year after the original director Richard Ciupka (credited as Jonathan Stryker) parted ways. There were apparently clashing opinions about what kind of movie Curtains was going to be. Producer Peter R. Simpson was evidently after another mainstream slasher in the vein of Prom Night, but one aimed at adults. Whereas Ciupka preferred an arthouse approach and tone. “He was more worried about shot composition than he was with the energy,” Simpson said of Ciupka.

curtains 1983 slasher

Once filming resumed with Simpson now in charge of directing, there were changes all around. Brooke’s original actor Celine Lomez had been replaced with Linda Thorson because Simpson was dissatisfied with her performance. New and old crew members were all brought in to complete the half-finished Curtains; the movie reflects these distinct production periods with the “Act I” and “Act II” sections in the ending credits. Screenwriter Robert Guza Jr. also returned to revise the script, which included both new scenes and adjustments to Ciupka’s footage. Editor Michael MacLaverty had his work cut out for him as he frankensteined two different movies, though the final product is a testament to his abilities. Only someone very aware of the behind-the-scenes issues would pick up on the discrepancies in style and source material.

As if having desperate actors all vie for the same high-profile role isn’t tense enough, Eggar’s character drops in unexpectedly, seeking the same part once intended for her. How she managed to escape the hospital, however, is unclear; a plot hole comes up when Samantha’s faceless and partially off-screen “roommate” mentions helping her get out, only to then never be brought up again. From here on out, Curtains digs its nails into an unspoken yet loud narrative about what it takes to be a woman in Hollywood (or Hollywood North). Every entrant here degrades herself in some way, physically or emotionally, in order to impress Stryker. Watching Samantha and the others “sell” themselves for a job becomes the most unsettling, not to mention timeless, aspect of the story.

Supplementing Ciupka’s bid for refined psychological terror are Simpson’s flagrant displays of commercial horror. Curtains’ most memorable set piece is undoubtedly Lesleh Donaldson’s skate sequence. Editor MacLaverty was surprised by how much fans enjoyed this scene; he only sees the technical flaws, while audiences are won over by the eerie day setting, slow motion, music, and, most of all, the killer’s mask. The hag visage, although not the first of its kind in the horror genre, is haunting. Not only does the mask evoke surface discomfort, it’s a perfect embodiment of the fear of growing old. After all, it’s the younger characters who are all pursued by the killer hiding behind a wizened veneer. Simpson’s other notable directed scene is Sandee Currie’s long and beautifully creepy chase scene inside the prop house.

Curtains 1983 horror

The technical tussle between old and new footage can be seen occasionally. Two characters’ deadly fall from the second story is edited in such a bizarre manner that it defies logic, but clearly no one was too wrapped up in everything making sense or being seamless at that point. And despite the rumor of there being multiple endings shot, each one with a different killer, the definitive villain was known from the start. There was even an alternate ending where the killer stands among their victims’ corpses on stage. Simpsons’ wife supposedly found that conclusion to make the least sense from a rational standpoint. Keeping it would have only added to the movie’s surreal quality, though.

It’s unclear if Ciupka’s original vision for Curtains was as unfeasible as Simpson claimed; there is no chance of seeing that movie now. Yet Simpson did a laudable job of salvaging what almost became an abandoned movie. He, the crew and the cast made the best of a troubled production, and the end result is shockingly better than it has any right to be, in light of every issue and obstacle that came up during shooting and post production. The acting talent is stellar for this kind of movie, and Simpson augments Ciupka’s groundwork. 

Despite their obvious “tax shelter” purposes, many of these Hollywood North horror movies are now considered both classics and comforts in the genre. 1983’s Curtains doesn’t get anywhere near the same treatment as its contemporaries, however that may be because for the longest time, it was so hard to get a hold of. And without a doubt it got lost in the shuffle upon and after its limited theatrical release. Now thanks to Synapse’s gorgeous restoration, people are discovering — or in some cases, rediscovering — this unsung horror.


Horrors Elsewhere is a recurring column that spotlights a variety of movies from all around the globe, particularly those not from the United States. Fears may not be universal, but one thing is for sure — a scream is understood, always and everywhere.

curtains

Paul Lê is a Texas-based, Tomato approved critic at Bloody Disgusting, Dread Central, and Tales from the Paulside.

Editorials

Finding Faith and Violence in ‘The Book of Eli’ 14 Years Later

Published

on

Having grown up in a religious family, Christian movie night was something that happened a lot more often than I care to admit. However, back when I was a teenager, my parents showed up one night with an unusually cool-looking DVD of a movie that had been recommended to them by a church leader. Curious to see what new kind of evangelical propaganda my parents had rented this time, I proceeded to watch the film with them expecting a heavy-handed snoozefest.

To my surprise, I was a few minutes in when Denzel Washington proceeded to dismember a band of cannibal raiders when I realized that this was in fact a real movie. My mom was horrified by the flick’s extreme violence and dark subject matter, but I instantly became a fan of the Hughes Brothers’ faith-based 2010 thriller, The Book of Eli. And with the film’s atomic apocalypse having apparently taken place in 2024, I think this is the perfect time to dive into why this grim parable might also be entertaining for horror fans.

Originally penned by gaming journalist and The Walking Dead: The Game co-writer Gary Whitta, the spec script for The Book of Eli was already making waves back in 2007 when it appeared on the coveted Blacklist. It wasn’t long before Columbia and Warner Bros. snatched up the rights to the project, hiring From Hell directors Albert and Allen Hughes while also garnering attention from industry heavyweights like Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman.

After a series of revisions by Anthony Peckham meant to make the story more consumer-friendly, the picture was finally released in January of 2010, with the finished film following Denzel as a mysterious wanderer making his way across a post-apocalyptic America while protecting a sacred book. Along the way, he encounters a run-down settlement controlled by Bill Carnegie (Gary Oldman), a man desperate to get his hands on Eli’s book so he can motivate his underlings to expand his empire. Unwilling to let this power fall into the wrong hands, Eli embarks on a dangerous journey that will test the limits of his faith.


SO WHY IS IT WORTH WATCHING?

Judging by the film’s box-office success, mainstream audiences appear to have enjoyed the Hughes’ bleak vision of a future where everything went wrong, but critics were left divided by the flick’s trope-heavy narrative and unapologetic religious elements. And while I’ll be the first to admit that The Book of Eli isn’t particularly subtle or original, I appreciate the film’s earnest execution of familiar ideas.

For starters, I’d like to address the religious elephant in the room, as I understand the hesitation that some folks (myself included) might have about watching something that sounds like Christian propaganda. Faith does indeed play a huge part in the narrative here, but I’d argue that the film is more about the power of stories than a specific religion. The entire point of Oldman’s character is that he needs a unifying narrative that he can take advantage of in order to manipulate others, while Eli ultimately chooses to deliver his gift to a community of scholars. In fact, the movie even makes a point of placing the Bible in between equally culturally important books like the Torah and Quran, which I think is pretty poignant for a flick inspired by exploitation cinema.

Sure, the film has its fair share of logical inconsistencies (ranging from the extent of Eli’s Daredevil superpowers to his impossibly small Braille Bible), but I think the film more than makes up for these nitpicks with a genuine passion for classic post-apocalyptic cinema. Several critics accused the film of being a knockoff of superior productions, but I’d argue that both Whitta and the Hughes knowingly crafted a loving pastiche of genre influences like Mad Max and A Boy and His Dog.

Lastly, it’s no surprise that the cast here absolutely kicks ass. Denzel plays the title role of a stoic badass perfectly (going so far as to train with Bruce Lee’s protégée in order to perform his own stunts) while Oldman effortlessly assumes a surprisingly subdued yet incredibly intimidating persona. Even Mila Kunis is remarkably charming here, though I wish the script had taken the time to develop these secondary characters a little further. And hey, did I mention that Tom Waits is in this?


AND WHAT MAKES IT HORROR ADJACENT?

Denzel’s very first interaction with another human being in this movie results in a gory fight scene culminating in a face-off against a masked brute wielding a chainsaw (which he presumably uses to butcher travelers before eating them), so I think it’s safe to say that this dog-eat-dog vision of America will likely appeal to horror fans.

From diseased cannibals to hyper-violent motorcycle gangs roaming the wasteland, there’s plenty of disturbing R-rated material here – which is even more impressive when you remember that this story revolves around the bible. And while there are a few too many references to sexual assault for my taste, even if it does make sense in-universe, the flick does a great job of immersing you in this post-nuclear nightmare.

The excessively depressing color palette and obvious green screen effects may take some viewers out of the experience, but the beat-up and lived-in sets and costume design do their best to bring this dead world to life – which might just be the scariest part of the experience.

Ultimately, I believe your enjoyment of The Book of Eli will largely depend on how willing you are to overlook some ham-fisted biblical references in order to enjoy some brutal post-apocalyptic shenanigans. And while I can’t really blame folks who’d rather not deal with that, I think it would be a shame to miss out on a genuinely engaging thrill-ride because of one minor detail.

With that in mind, I’m incredibly curious to see what Whitta and the Hughes Brothers have planned for the upcoming prequel series starring John Boyega


There’s no understating the importance of a balanced media diet, and since bloody and disgusting entertainment isn’t exclusive to the horror genre, we’ve come up with Horror Adjacent – a recurring column where we recommend non-horror movies that horror fans might enjoy.

Continue Reading