da best gothic-romance: 'Corridor of Mirrors' (1948)
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Romance
Paul P. Powell — 6 months ago(September 15, 2025 04:09 AM)
Terence Young's first directorial outing defines the genre. '
Corridor of Mirrors'
(1948).
Terence Young, director of some of the best James Bond installments
[Doctor No]
and also many other kick-arse films [AudHep in '
Wait Until Dark'
.]
This B&W work of his, is really very fine indeed. Reminiscent of Hitchcock's
'Rebecca'
; or maybe something by the Archers.
But it is better than anyone else's experiments with the classic gothic format.
2.
What is Gothic Romance? Hard to say. But one thing is true: they are supposed to evoke a very specific sensation; as does film noir.
Reading a gothic romance is specifically designed to induce a breathiness in the reader. This is the scale upon which examples are graded.
It is traditionally difficult to bring about on-screen. So –what is the best exercise in the form? This film I am citing right here.
Young doesn't fumble a single scene. Just a reminder: it is his first movie.
Funnily enough (when 'Corridor' was first recommended to me), I expected it to be low-budget-horror similar to a Hammer production. You know: flimsy, grainy, mists-on-the-moor & corny werewolves howling. [I'm a fan of low-budget horror, mind you.]
But I'm frankly shocked at this imaginative Terence Young storyline. What a stunner.
Deeply shadowy, gauzy, luscious, gothic-romance atmosphere. It is so rich and velvety that one must pace one's self and digest slowly. The visuals are extraordinary.
3.
This is not at all a cheap-looking Hammer Production, although it was probably shot with cost-consciousness. The production design is simply, frugal and economical. Clever that way.
Although this yarn is mostly set in 'posh' London–in league with the opulent sets of 'Red Shoes' or 'Black Narcissus'–it is a more like a Brit-Noir.
The reason to regard it as different from either of those other fantasies, is that those more famous titles by the Archers are shot in bright, rich color. Whereas this tale is murky-dark
'La Belle et la Bette
'.
What is exemplary: at all times, is that the narrative stays intimate with the camera always hovering just inches away from the eyes –the way Michael Curtiz does in,
'Casablanca'.
What else? Well. All the expected touches are handled adroitly: perfume, silk gowns, jeweled necklaces, statues-with-eyes-which-seem-to-follow-you. Men in tuxedos. Huge dining rooms with high-backed chairs, long oak tables, floor-to-ceiling tapestries. Hansom carriage rides. Grand pianos. Candelabra.
4. The Actors:
Eric Portman is the male lead. What a juicy role for him. He's an old trooper of course. Me, I've only really known him from the '60s. Various spy films, and 'Fahrenheit'. But in this case he is a romantic leading man as manipulative as any I can think of.
Why is he so spot-on? I donno. He's got a thick, 'Ruritania' timbre to his voice. He also has the knack of himself perfectly poised for close-ups.
What is notable about Portman's delivery is that halfway through the tale, you're still not quite sure whether he is hero or villain. You can't predict the climax. Is he evil? Is he insane? Is he a ghost? No way to tell. This is romantic suspense very similar to
'Casablanca'
. Goosebumps for women viewers.
Eric Portman easily outshines Lawrence Olivier's "
Maxim de Winter
". He's almost disturbing.
To sum up: I consider this oddball, obscure, Byzantine movie a must-see for any serious movie-buff. It is a foundation-stone of a whole style of storytelling.
Paul P. Powell, Pool Player