Silver Screen Stories: Night of the Demon

 

It's Halloween time again, and for 2025, I thought I'd talk about one of my favorite classic horror films, the 1957 British classic, "Night of the Demon". It's a lesser known movie, but in this man's opinion one of the best horror films ever made, of any era. It also happens to be one hell of a "supernatural drama", or "psychological thriller", in an era when the latter especially, was not very common. 

 

 

The U.S. poster.

 

 

It was also released in 1958 in the United States, under the title "Curse of the Demon". However, it was shortened for some stupid reason, by roughly 14 minutes, and while it's still a good movie, the U.S. audience was definitely cheated, as some of the cut scenes help round out the story and make things make more sense. I first saw it, most likely, in the late 2000s, once I started regularly renting movies from Netflix (back when it was for renting DVDs, and nothing more). I can't honestly remember if I saw the "Curse" or "Night" version first, but either way, I loved it from the start. It's definitely not your average 50s monster movie (though I adore those with a burning passion).  

 

 

Stonehenge has nothing to really do with the plot, but it's still a cool visual.

 

 

The film stars Dana Andrews, a great and incredibly underrated (and not very well known) dramatic actor. One of his best films, was a little known suspense/drama called "Zero Hour", which just so happens to be the movie that the 1980 comedy hit "Airplane" copied, some scenes note for note. But "Night of the Demon" is another of his bet roles, because he brings a gravity and soberness to the character, and the story, that really grounds the movie, and makes it feel like serious business. Andrews plays Dr. John Holden, a prominent psychologist, who also specializes in "debunking" supposedly supernatural and psychic phenomena. He arrives in England to give a lecture on just such a thing, helping to debunk a supposedly "magick" cult, when he discovers that his colleague, Professor Harrington, has met with a mysterious death.

 

 

A parchment of runes.

 

 

The film begins with an opening scene showing Harrington, frantically trying to meet with one Julian Karswell, a rich eccentric who is an alleged "sorcerer", with many local followers. It seems Karswell arranged for the Professor, who was publicly criticizing him and his cult, to receive a supposedly "cursed" parchment of runes, like the one seen above. And the Professor had come to believe, for whatever reasons, that the curse was real, and he begged Karswell to revoke it. However, since the parchment had already flown into a fireplace, seemingly of its own accord, and burned to ashes, Karswell simply states he'll "do what he can", after the Professor promises to publicly recant. Of course, the mysterious Mr. Karswell knows something we the audience don't, as while making his way home, relieved, poor Professor Harrington finds himself accosted by what seem like supernatural forces, and he dies.

 

 

Dr. Julian Karswell, the central figure in the tale.

 

 While Dr. Holden's international colleagues seem to think there might be something to the "supernatural" elements surrounding Harrington's demise, Holden himself remains ever the staunch skeptic, refusing to believe there is any such thing. He insists that there must be a rational explanation for these events, and proceeds to the British Museum Reading Room, to do further research for his upcoming presentation on Karswell. He happens, by supposed chance, to run into Karswell himself while there, where the man appeals to him, to drop his expose, and even offers to allow Holden to come to his mansion, to check out a rare book on magick that seems to be missing from the Museum Library. What Holden doesn't see, however, is that when Karswell "accidentally" knocks over some papers, when returning them to Holden, he had slipped in, you guessed it, another sinister parchment...

 

 

 

The brave leading lady.

 

Dr. Holden, while attending Professor Harrington's funeral, meets his niece, Joanna Harrington, whom he had previously encountered, though he didn't know it, on his airplane trip to the UK. She is trying to discover what truly happened to her uncle, whom she was very fond of. She has his private diary, which details his final days, in which it seems that certain strange events, caused him to shift from being a total skeptic like Holden, to being a firm believer that something was amiss, and his life was in danger. He had definitely come to respect and fear what he believed was Karswell's very real power. 

Joanna wants to meet Karswell, to see if she can learn anything, so they go together, Holden having been formally invited. When they arrive, Karswell and his mother and servants are holding his annual Halloween party, for the local children. Karswell himself is dressed up somewhat like a clown, performing innocent magic tricks for the kids, while his mother serves them home made ice cream. But when walking and talking alone with Holden later, Karswell shows his "darker" side. As a demonstration of his supposed power, he claims credit for a sudden strong and seemingly unnatural wind that rises, forcing them into the mansion. When Holden still refuses to believe that Karswell has any kind of "magick", and refuses to cancel his lecture and expose, Karswell, deadly serious, informs Holden that he will die in precisely three days. 

 

 

This film oozes atmosphere and mood.

 

 

Now this movie was directed by one Jacques Tourneur, a French filmmaker who had made quite a career for himself in Hollywood, throughout the '30s, '40s and '50s. He was known for a wide variety of genres, from serious dramas, to romances, to westerns, noir crime and even war films. But most importantly in relation to this film, in the early 40s, he directed three consecutive horror movies for RKO, and producer Val Lewton. Those films were 1942's "Cat People", and 1943's "I Walked With a Zombie" and "The Leopard Man". In all three cases, though most especially in "Cat People", Tourneur makes liberal use of shadows and dark rooms, dark streets and spooky atmosphere. He also plays with the audience, making them wonder if there is indeed something "more", something supernatural, at work. 

And he brings all of those tools and tricks back for Demon, though in my opinion, he outdoes those flicks, classics though they are. For pretty much the entire film, you are along for the ride with ultra-skeptical Dr. Holden, who believes that all instances of "the paranormal" are explainable, and therefor hogwash. Yet as the story unfolds, much like his unfortunate colleague Professor Harrington before him, even he, and through him the audience, begins to question. 

After their visit to the Karswell estate, while talking alone back in Holden's room, a piece of parchment he had no idea was hidden among his notes, seemingly flew (with no noticeable breeze) of its own accord, directly for the fireplace. Though unlike the Professor, Holden was spared by the timely intervention of a metal fireplace screen, which stops the parchment from burning, and allows him to recover it, unbeknownst to Dr. Karswell. But from this instance onward, as time gets ever close to his presentation, he starts experiencing a variety of things, always feeling cold, hearing strange noises, his vision blurring at times, or thinking that he's starting to hallucinate, etc. It doesn't stop his skepticism cold, but it does make him begin to wonder. 

 

 

Hallucination, or something more? 

 

 

And I feel that is a big part of what sets this apart from many other classic horror films, many of which some would label "campy" or "schlocky". From beginning to end, it takes itself, and its subject matter, seriously. It presents you with both facets of the story, that of clinical, skeptical science, and the possibility of actual "magick" and paranormal activity. The film itself doesn't seem to "side" with either point of view, not completely, instead opting to merely present you with plenty from both "sides", and focuses on telling you a good story. 

Karswell, for his part, played brilliantly by the great Niall MacGinnis, makes the movie. Dana Andrews and Peggy Cummins are fantastic as our believable and sympathetic heroes, but no story is truly great, without a great antagonist, and Karswell is definitely that. MacGinnis revels in the role, playing the arrogant and self-assured "sorcerer" to the hilt, while still not going over the top at any point. Which makes him all the more chilling, because he doesn't really come off as delusional, and he isn't your stereotpically "mustache twirling villain". No, he seems to know exactly what he's talking about, and exactly what he's doing. He seems to know how things will unfold, and seems confidence he's going to win, calmly, and chillingly confident, throughout. 

The movie leaves it somewhat to the viewers imagination, as to whether the "supernatural" things in the story are truly that, or just some kind of advanced hypnosis or hallucination. To that end, the studio made one interjection that Tourneur didn't agree with: they wanted the titular "demon" to be seen. And so while Tourneur himself had intended to keep it even more ambiguous, by only showing simply shadows, lighting and the occasional distortion or wind or smoke, the film does in fact show us a physical demon, hunting people down and seemingly attacking them. To be fair, the demon looks pretty damn good for what was surely not a big budget movie, and I also don't believe it being shown dampens or lessens what Tourneur was going for. Though I can also see why he would have wanted to show much less. 

 

 

Hey, how are ya?

 

 

Ultimately, while showing the demon could have been "cheesy" and detracted from the suspension of disbelief, it doesn't. It still works, in that it could very well be an honest-to-God "fire demon", materializing in a cloud of smoke, to smite Karswell's intended victims. Or it could just be some powerful post-hypnotic suggestion on Karswell's part, infecting their minds, and it's just coincidence that they happen to die horribly while having these horrible visions. Me, personally, I'm a spiritual kind of guy (though not at all religious), plus I've had a fascination with monsters and the supernatural since I was a kid. So I, naturally, lean towards the demon being real. But that said, I also like the attempt at ambiguity the film goes for. I like that it still leaves it up to the viewer to decide whether it was all real, or imagined. In a way, that makes it spookier and more mysterious, than if the film itself simply told you precisely what was what. 

I personally think that Jacques Tourneur is one of the most underrated, and talented, filmmakers of all time. Not exactly one of my personal top favorites, but I've also either liked, or at least appreciated, everything I've thus far seen of his. He was absolutely a master, and that isn't anywhere better on display, than in "Night of the Demon". I won't spoil the later events, or climax of the film for you, because if you've already seen it, then you know. And if you haven't, then by golly, do yourself a huge favor this Halloween season, and make sure you go find it, and WATCH it! You'll thank me.  

So I hope you enjoyed this piece, I hope you go enjoy the film, and above all, may you all have a very Happy Halloween!