Simultaneous Watching and Analysis: Shock Corridor

Brady G. asked me to introduce this movie. I agreed with the caveat that I didn’t know where to start. 24 hours later, I still don’t know where to start. Thus, I have the perfect intro:

Where to start?

When it comes to Samuel Fuller, you’re in very idiosyncratic territory: balls-to-the-walls b-movie kitsch and audacity with heart and intelligence. Any true fan of the b-movie production style knows that oftentimes, though not always, the rather over-the-top and hammy tone can bely a filmmaker who actually does have something to say, and Fuller is probably the exegesis of that idea. Combine the fact that Constance Towers is, in my humble opinion, the absolutely greatest blonde-with-a-thrilled-director since Hedren met Hitchcock, and yoose got yourselves a bubbling cauldron of campy wizardry indeed.

That said, look that the territory the subject pulls us into: we’re smack dab in yellow journalism, shady practices, institutional corruption and good old fashioned every day insanity, complete with raining hallways as familiar to the joyfully batshit as the smell of sweet apple pie to all those boring normal people who suck at life and ignore the funny wagon driving by. Could Fuller have been, perhaps, a bit more realistic with what he presented? Certainly. Could he have been more subtle, attracted us with deeper characters and more illusory production design? Well, possibly if he had a bit more money. But who cares? In 2010, we already have One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, only in Shock Corridor it’s as if EVERYONE is played by madcap Jack.

No, this is no subtle variations on a theme, this is broad expressionist strokes. As for realism, this would be all the more unbelievable if it weren’t for movies like Titticut Follies which show that even these gritty b-movie directors with their yellow journalists paths were on to something and willing to show it, not in some nice neat “Hey guys here’s this problem but let’s be very fair to everyone involved, eh?” but in direct “This is fucked up” exagerration.

Meanwhile, if balance is what you want, how about the selfishness and absurdity of our not-so-humble protagonist, his vanity and ego as he waltzes right in to a situation he doesn’t understand in search for that Pulitzer Prize, as if it’s some Holy Grail that overshadows and neglects the whole crusade that supports it? Or Constance Towers’ faith and devotion as a humble hous—wait, scratch that, nightclub performer. Oh yes, nobody in this narrative is, erm, perfect. But for what it’s worth, they also are not too detestable either. Hmmm, kudos to Fuller.

And then, well, story, production, and characters aside, still, where to start? A history of cinema replicating madness and dreams and still this one guy Fuller pulls out some pretty exceptional tricks from his sleeve, playing with visual reality like it’s nobody’s business—because in Shock Corridor, it isn’t, it’s all out of everybody’s control.

—PolarisDiB

I found the girlfriend a very interesting character, a high and mighty seeming stripper who works to keep them in decent money, very common today, ultra modern in this time. The actress is wonderful esp in the scene where the protag who is pretending to be her brother is at the point where he is crazy enough to believe he is her brother and she tries to kiss him, sad stuff. But the film does not have many scenes for me that are powerful like that. It feels like a lot of weird jokes and racial situations not meant to do much more than be odd or shock. The twitchy version of crazy is overbearing sometimes as are most of the performances. Sure there are great visuals and the hallway and rooms seem oppresive enough to be authentic to the story but the story of this man’s quest to win the putlizer (Peter Brock’s atrocious acting aside) is not interesting.

I enjoyed the movie just fine, but found the ending to be totally unbelievable based on the visual evidence we’re given up to that point. Sure. He’s insane. It must’ve happened overnight.

If subtlety is what you’re looking for, don’t come knocking at Fuller’s door.

I think this was the first Fuller film I ever saw. I ran across the VHS (yes, VHS) in a store one day and recognized his name from articles I had been reading by Godard. At that point in my life, Godard’s criticism was my watch list (possibly still is). I picked up the tape, and after watching it I immediately loved it. This will always be the film that spells “Fuller” to me. There are plenty of things to love. Not the least of which is Cortez’s noirish b&w cinematography, which is among the best I’ve ever seen.

That was ALL you found unbelievable, Miasma? Heh, nevertheless, I think Shock Corridor is a great film. Also, a very quotable film as well (“There’s one of ‘em now! Let’s get ’im before he marries my daughter!” – well maybe that shouldn’t be quoted, how about, “Hamlet was made for Freud. Not you.”).

Not to mention the recurring line, “Who killed Sloan in the kitchen with the knife?” Heh, great stuff. Very self-aware and totally excessive. Those aren’t small dainty brushstrokes Fuller’s painting with, it’s loud and bombastic, over-the-top and heavy with it’s emotions. It’s certainly a film that benefits being watched by a viewer open to it’s odd brand of humour and campiness.

“Whom God wishes to destroy, he first makes mad.”

A quote so nice Fuller had to say it twice; a key indicator of just how unsubtle the film is.

This is my first time watching Shock Corridor, I do like it very much, yet it is difficult to say exactly why that it. For the most part, I’m not a big fan of films that are so blatant, but it is what makes this one so endearing.

The use of the mental institution as an allegory for society is a good way to go. I couldn’t help but think of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest while watching Shock Corridor. There are definitely differences, but the similarities are undeniable. Individual versus society must have been forefront in the public consciousness at the time since Kesey’s novel and Shock Corridor were produced in the same time frame, something probably attributable to postwar anxieties of the Cold War and the evolution of Civil Rights.

The biggest difference I see between the two is that Cuckoo’s Nest was more about the individual struggling against an ever more repressive society and that Corridor takes a closer look at the symptoms and how society is going mad as a result of its actions, an omen of destruction should things remain the same.

The three witnesses to the murder in Corridor embody primary society ills and fears. I see overlap amongst them, but primarily Stuart represents bigotry, ignorance, and Communist fears; Trent represents racism; and Boden stands in for Cold War fears and nationalistic hubris. Johnny Barrett, himself as the reporter chasing fame and fortune through his vain endeavor to solve the murder can represent personal or individual pride.

Pagliacci was a favorite of mine. He is what I see as Fuller’s deliberate attempt at some sort of comic relief in the film. His first appearance, when he enters the ward and closes the door behind him, had a foreboding tone to it, but I was happy when it was a ruse and that he turned out to be friendly and unthreatening. Next time I’m having trouble falling asleep, I think I will give the five sticks of gum method a try.

There was plenty of other humor within the film that I’m sure was unintentional. When I saw Trent my mind immediately went to Clayton Bigsby, the Dave Chappelle characterization of the blind black man who is a white supremacist, and also of Cheppelle’s Niggar Family. I can’t imagine that somewhere along the way Chappelle hadn’t watched this movie himself. The way the women swarmed on Johnny like a horde of vampires when he went into the wrong room was also laughable. And the repetitious “Who killed Sloan in the kitchen with the knife?” made it seem as if Parker Brothers was using it as product placement for the “Clue” board game. Of course, there are also some of the other lines of dialogue that elicit a smile or a chuckle.

I debate with myself a little about the role of women in the film. They are relegated to the role of nymphomania, and I’m undecided as to whether they represent causes or symptoms. Regardless, it is a very shallow portrayal of women. If there is anything redemptive about the female role, it would be Cathy as the conscience. I really liked it when she was having the discussion with the editor about how if Johnny gives up he will go crazy because he would never know the outcome, but would be okay if he did crack the case. She said exactly what I was thinking, “Do you seriously believe that?”

Fuller doesn’t put too many obstacles in the way that would cloud his parable. Things move smoothly along. Cathy approaches the cops and the immediate conclusion is mental illness. The doctors stick directly to the acted out script. Each of the witnesses arrive in succession, right on cue, and each reveals just one more clue to the killer’s identity before slipping back into insanity. The killer is shown early on, but Fuller puts forth an effort to mislead us, portraying the killer as congenial and his colleague as suspect through his rude demeanor and the use of light and shadow to emphasize his potential for evil.

The use of color in the dreams was a nice tough. It emphasized that it was an allegory by specifically saying that their dreams or visions were in color, as if to indicate that they were living in a contrived black-and-white world.

The rain in the corridor is certainly a quite memorable scene and very well done. As far as the acting goes, I think Peter Breck did a fine job, slipping in and out of insanity pretty well. The cheesy voiceovers were a nice touch throughout, less than subtle but effective despite how I couldn’t help but grin at their corniness.

So, on the whole, I’m very pleased to have given this flick a closer look. Right now I’m half tempted to revisit the two other Fuller films I’ve seen, The Naked Kiss and White Dog, but think I will leave well enough alone for now and check in on those at a later time.

Shock Corridor always makes me think of Nietzsche:

“Madness is rare in individuals, but in groups, parties, nations and ages is it the rule”

watching 4 the first time i found shock corridor 2 be refreshing viewing as i don’t watch many old black and white films and when the colour parts were integrated it looked really distracting as if they were scenes from a more modern film

the voiceover technique speaking out loud a characters thoughts is an artform lost in modern cinema and that was fun and should be brought back 2 the mainstream ha ha

mental illness is a real frightening subject because it can happen 2 any of us at any stage of our lives… in johnny barrett’s case it was a realization he confronted at the outset in the office and felt he could rise 2 the challenge

the cleverness of the film was never letting us know if he was slowly losing his mind or just playing along with his objective always in mind

when it was eventually revealed that he had severe dementia it was an expected outcome… the real puzzle is wondering exactly how it was caused from the time that elapsed between the doctor hearing he was planted in the institution 2 the next confrontation with his girlfriend

I did not like the film but I do like yr post sleep

thanks :O)

where is brady g he suggested watching this film!

-i don’t watch many old black and white films and when the colour parts were integrated it looked really distracting as if they were scenes from a more modern film-

Really? Bear in mind that this was made in 1963, so color wasn’t exactly a novelty anymore. You guys know what the color footage actually is, right? It’s Fuller’s 16mm home movies that Fuller shot while working on other projects. The Brazilian footage was shot during pre-production for the unrealized Tigrero; the Japanese footage was shot during House of Bamboo.

-when it was eventually revealed that he had severe dementia it was an expected outcome… the real puzzle is wondering exactly how it was caused from the time that elapsed between the doctor hearing he was planted in the institution 2 the next confrontation with his girlfriend-

Basically there are a few different things going on, First, it’s been shown in studies that sane people institutionalized and treated as mentally ill while confined to a community of mentally ill people will come to behave more like mentally ill people. Secondly, the stress of being treated like these has a further destabilizing effect. Third, shock treatment.

I thought the film had a terrifying feel. Like being trapped in quicksand, or a bad dream. Johnny’s slide seems inevitable, and that shock treatment had a tragic effect on me. Like you just knew he would never be the same the rest of his life after only one session.

hey matt what study has shown a sane person that was treated as mentally ill?

The best-known one was Stanford psychologist David Rosenhan 1973 study published as “On Being Sane in Insane Places.” Wikipedia:

“The first part involved the use of healthy associates or “pseudopatients” who briefly simulated auditory hallucinations in an attempt to gain admission to 12 different psychiatric hospitals in five different states in various locations in the United States. All were admitted and diagnosed with psychiatric disorders. After admission, the pseudopatients acted normally and told staff that they felt fine and had not experienced any more hallucinations. Hospital staff failed to detect a single pseudopatient, and instead believed that all of the pseudopatients exhibited symptoms of ongoing mental illness. Several were confined for months. All were forced to admit to having a mental illness and agree to take antipsychotic drugs as a condition of their release."

There’s a famous one in (I think) Columbia University where students were invited to take a week-long psychology test. They were split up and some students were to play prisoners, others prison-guards. The prison-guard students began, over time, to really fall into their role, including in regards to the abuses and aggressiveness marked by their real-life counterparts in real institutions. Meanwhile, the students who played the prisoners began to break down emotionally and start to lose their faith in ideas such as hope and free will, while becoming servile. Upon finishing the experiment, the students were asked how much of it was them just acting or really believing in the role set to them, and many of the students responses were remarkable in their tendency to describe the experiences as if they actually had been through the ordeal, as well as their surprise at themselves for the way they acted, thought, and felt while living their roles—especially the guard students, who expressed regret and fear at the aggression and abuse they willfully lavished on the other students.

—PolarisDiB

sorry david rosenhan i am not convinced :O)

anyway i have a theory that in the puzzling time that elapsed, the doctor got the indeed stressed mr barrett into a hypnotherapy session and decided 2 control his mind 2 his own twisted liking (having the knowledge he disrespected the institution as a plant) thus making him raise his arm before his girlfriend and indefinitely

-There’s a famous one in (I think) Columbia University-

That was Stanford, too, actually: Philip Zombardo, 1971. Wikipedia again:

“The experiment quickly grew out of hand, and Zimbardo lost control of it. Prisoners suffered — and accepted — sadistic and humiliating treatment from the guards. The high level of stress progressively led them from rebellion to inhibition. By the experiment’s end, many showed severe emotional disturbances.

After a relatively uneventful first day, a riot broke out on the second day. The guards volunteered to work extra hours and worked together to break the prisoner revolt, attacking the prisoners with fire extinguishers without supervision from the research staff.

After only 36 hours, one prisoner began to act “crazy,” Zimbardo says; “#8612 then began to act crazy, to scream, to curse, to go into a rage that seemed out of control. It took quite a while before we became convinced that he was really suffering and that we had to release him.”

A false rumor spread that #8612, who was now out of the experiment, would lead companions to free the rest of the prisoners. The guards dismantled the prison and moved the inmates to another secure location. When no breakout attempt occurred, the guards were angry about having to rebuild the prison, so they took it out on the prisoners.

Guards forced the prisoners to count off repeatedly as a way to learn their prison numbers, and to reinforce the idea that this was their new identity. Guards soon used these prisoner counts as another method to harass the prisoners, using physical punishment such as protracted exercise for errors in the prisoner count. Sanitary conditions declined rapidly, made worse by the guards refusing to allow some prisoners to urinate or defecate. As punishment, the guards would not let the prisoners empty the sanitation bucket. Mattresses were a valued item in the spartan prison, so the guards would punish prisoners by removing their mattresses, leaving them to sleep on concrete. Some prisoners were forced to go nude as a method of degradation, and some were subjected to sexual humiliation, including simulated sodomy.

Zimbardo cited his own absorption in the experiment he guided, and in which he actively participated as Prison Superintendent. On the fourth day, some prisoners were talking about trying to escape. Zimbardo and the guards attempted to move the prisoners to the more secure local police station, but officials there said they could no longer participate in Zimbardo’s experiment.

Several guards became increasingly cruel as the experiment continued. Experimenters said that approximately one-third of the guards exhibited genuine sadistic tendencies. Most of the guards were upset when the experiment concluded early.

Zimbardo argued that the prisoner participants had internalized their roles, based on the fact that some had stated that they would accept parole even with the attached condition of forfeiting all of their experiment-participation pay. Yet, when their parole applications were all denied, none of the prisoner participants quit the experiment. Zimbardo argued they had no reason for continued participation in the experiment after having lost all monetary compensation, yet they did, because they had internalized the prisoner identity, they thought themselves prisoners, hence, they stayed."

Prisoner No. 416, a newly admitted stand-by prisoner, expressed concern over the treatment of the other prisoners. The guards responded with more abuse. When he refused to eat his sausages, saying he was on a hunger strike, guards confined him in a closet and called it “solitary confinement.” The guards used this incident to turn the other prisoners against No. 416, saying the only way he would be released from solitary confinement was if they gave up their blankets and slept on their bare mattresses, which all but one refused to do.

Zimbardo aborted the experiment early when Christina Maslach, a graduate student he was then dating (and later married), objected to the appalling conditions of the prison after she was introduced to the experiment to conduct interviews. Zimbardo noted that of more than fifty outside persons who had seen the prison, Maslach was the only one who questioned its morality. After only six days of a planned two weeks’ duration, the Stanford Prison experiment was shut down."

Earlier (1961) there was the Milgram experiment at Yale, which “measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience” (administering what they believed to be electric shocks of increasing voltage up to the a voltage sufficient to cause death).

“the extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation . . . Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.”

Conclusions: by and large, we are do what we’re told, and we become what we are told we are.

A little late on this response… Looks like some of the points I wanted to make in regards to social psychology and various experiments has already been mentioned and discussed. The only thing I can add about the prison experiment in Stanford which surprised me was that all 24 students knew they were playing a role and participating in an experiment and yet they still managed to get out of control with their characters and this is what I think relates most to this film—> in that the journalist knows he’s only playing the role of a mentally unstable client however ends up taking on the symptomatology of someone who is actually clinically insane.

Other than that, I enjoyed the over-the-top depiction of those in an insane asylum despite the fact that it was a bit unrealistic (which I don’t even think Fuller was trying to be). I’ve worked at a place where a bunch of people with full blown mental illnesses live and I’d say it wasn’t too far off from what this film shows (ha!)… I liked the flashes of sanity/ insanity mixed together, the internal dialogue, sexual conflict with the main character, kooky characters, eerie and echo-y sounds throughout the film sounds, etc etc. It was a fun watch that kept me engaged throughout the film…

Here are some still I enjoyed!

I just watched this and felt really disturbed by and in awe of it. I found it to be a great criticism of the collective psyche of 1960’s America, but what made it truly disturbing and brilliant was that it was made as if it believed all the things it ambiguously indicts. For one, contempt for and misunderstanding of the insane occurs not only in the film, but also by the film. In the world of the film, the police don’t seem to try very hard to interrogate the witnesses to the murder (Johnny didn’t really have to do any actual investigating!), either because they didn’t feel like the mentally ill would be worth interviewing or because they felt that the murder of a mentally ill person wasn’t worth investigating. The treatment throughout the film seems to be simple shots in the dark – you get shock therapy for misbehaving – they don’t know what it will do, but hopefully something good. But the film itself seems to have contempt for the patients – they are all characterized as melodramatic “crazy people” whose conditions are contagious and are somehow less than real men. I felt kind of the same way about the treatment of women in the film – on one hand, johnny’s girlfriend is right from the beginning, but she is also a powerless woman who can do nothing except pull Johnny’s catatonic hands around herself at the end (a gesture which gave me goosebumps). I can’t really be sure if the film is indicting the misogynistic tendencies of the 1960’s or taking part in it.

Also, I imagined somehow being a middle-aged no-nonsense 1950’s type of man who for some reason saw this film and would be really disturbed because it so brutally manipulates the anxieties of that time period.

These are just a few things I thought of when watching it and I can’t wait to revisit it, and am super excited to see other Samuel Fuller films (this is his first that I’ve seen)!

This was also my first Fuller film and it left a strong impact on me. I didn’t read it quite as morally turbulent as you did but you raise some interesting points worth discussing.

bump. I want to discuss this, guys.

Then bump with a thought, so you can help get things jump-started easier.

worst strip tease ever? also there’s no such thing as nymphos. that part was hilarious. i’ve seen quite a few fullers but this was the most extreme by far. i’m looking into getting the naked kiss now

ok i admit i didn’t get past the surface on first viewing. alot of it was unintentionally hilarious but on further thought very frightening. it’s not about depiction of mental illness at all but about america as asylum, or how the american dream makes one crazy? it’s hard to take seriously while watching tho. naked kiss was somewhat more accessible

I watched The Naked Kiss a few days after Shock Corridor, and was disappointed… It didn’t even come close to the way Shock Corridor unapologetically rips open every anxiety of late 1950’s America.

I also feel that “Shock Corridor” is the stronger movie when compared to “The Naked Kiss”. But I need to give “Kiss” another look. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen it.

A fun diversion, especially if you have a soft spot for Fuller’s wildness, which I sometimes do.
All told, however, it’s a morality play with no more subtlety or sophistication than STAR TREK.
It has no more depth in its social commentary than a Rod Serling teleplay; it’s just louder
and less well organized.
In fact, this picture strikes me as an extended TWILIGHT ZONE episode, minus any restraint.
But again, that’s not really a reason to avoid it, considering who is at the helm.
(It’s possible to enjoy a 3-ring circus without thinking that it’s anything other than a circus.)
Perhaps because Shock takes place in a psych ward, Naked Kiss packs more of a wallop
in having its peculiarities and perverse melodramas explored in a “normal” setting.
It’s certainly offers more potential for dark humor, to my eyes.

Doctor Lemonglow, in what way do you find it a simple morality play? What is it for / against? Insanity? Misogyny? Racism? Who are the goodguys and who are the badguys? For me, the film really blurred these lines. While it can seem like a morality play, the more you think about it the more complex it becomes.

I just watched the trailer for this and love that it called it an “incredibly realistic story!” LOL!