I’ve never seen a good print of “The Old Dark House.” What’s available on video or on cable is a high-contrasty print.

Those guys should make the restored LoC version available on DVD.

And no, I don’t recall sensing a gay subtext between Karloff and the Old Dark wacko. I gotta watch that movie again…

Lists as a “means of measuring film history” are indeed useless (just take a look at the AFI lists), but I bet that Sight & Sound will come up with another such list in 2012.

As I said in my previous post, those lists are good seeling tools. That’s why publications create them — including the Alternative Film Guide. (I do, however, explain that my lists — and my reviews — are, like everybody else’s, highly subjective and definitely NOT written in stone.)

Now, I do enjoy reading lists — depending on who is doing them, of course. I look at those lists not to discover the Greatest Movies of All Time, but to find out what particular individuals or group(s) of individuals find special.

Unfortunately, a list filled with relatively obscure titles (i.e., anything made outside of Hollywood, released before 1985, and that hasn’t become a major “classic” of some kind) will not get the sort of media attention accorded to lists consisting of more popular fare.

And, needless to say, such lists are almost invariably self-promotional tools.

Yes, “The Old Dark House” is terrific. People attending Cinesation kept repeating Thesiger’s line “Have a potato” for the rest of the weekend. There’s a really interesting relationship between Karloff’s character as the mute manservant and the insane brother Saul which the family has kept hidden in the attic. When Saul is killed in the end, Karloff is seen very tenderly holding Saul as he’s dying and Karloff is clearly very bereaved by his death. It had a certain gay subtext for me. If I remember correctly, I think Karloff was particularly watchful over Saul, and was the one who was mainly in charge of his care. You get a sense that perhaps there was a deep love and intimacy that existed between the two men. Again, just my personal take on that.

I don’t know that I was necessarily “frightend” watching “The Old Dark House” but it has a very palpable and stirring atmosphere due largely to the superlative cinematography of Arthur Edeson and the perverse performances from several of the actors. The print shown at Cinesation was taken from a stunning 35mm LOC print. The film was as clear and smooth as glass on the big screen and breathtaking to behold.

But then the film takes a turn toward the macabre, and it had me on the edge of my seat until the (lighter) finale. There are precious few horror movies from the 1930s that actually put the fear of godawfulness in me — but “The Old Dark House” is one of them.

So, perhaps we should call it a Horredy?

Curiously, “The Old Dark House” is nowhere to be found in the Chicago critics’ top 94 (!) list of scariest movies.

Maybe it’s one of the missing last six titles…

I gotta admit that I saw “Bride of Frankenstein” many years ago. I remember finding some of it humorous. I definitely remember that it wasn’t at all a “scary movie.”

I do have the DVD here. I need to check it out again. (I can’t think of any big-screen showings of “Bride” in the Los Angeles area in the near future.)

Of course that’s just my personal take. I haven’t really read a great deal about James Whale(Haven’t gotten around to the biography yet), but I find that aspect of the film quite interesting considering Whale was a gay director.

So no, I can’t say I find “Bride Of Frankenstein” a “horror” film per se. But something much more significant. I’m a big Karloff fan, and despite the fact that his face is obscured by the heavy makeup, it’s one of his finest performances. Coupled with James Whale’s excellent direction and his moody, surreal cinematic touch, seeing it on the big screen was an entirely different and emotional experience.