Announcing The 2020 Classic Literature On Film Blogathon!

image (3)

I am very pleased and excited to announce my first hosting of a blogathon – namely the Classic Literature On Film Blogathon!

And of course you are all kindly and heartily invited to partake!

Classic novels and plays have provided cinema with some of the greatest stories of all time. They are part of the fabric of culture and have been powerful in helping us to understand ourselves. Since the early days of cinema, film-makers have mined the richness of classic tales for the silver screen. Some of our most beloved films have been based on the works of Charles Dickens, the Bronte sisters, Jane Austen and Mark Twain, to name a few. Indeed, many classic novels have been produced many times.

So, the main focus of the blogathon is to celebrate, examine, critique and review those films that have been based on classic literature!

As already mentioned, the concept of ‘classic literature’ reflects what has been traditionally considered by scholars as those books and plays which have had a considerable impact on the development of literature. They have set the standards for and established certain genres and have given us some of the most recognised stories and characters.  So this blogathon aims to keep the focus within those boundaries – but of course that leaves everyone plenty of options!

Please have a look at the rules below and I TRULY hope you will take part!

Outline Of Rules

  1. This blogathon is not just restricted to reviewing actual films based on classic literature. Participants are encouraged to write on any angle regarding the topic area e.g comparisons of films based on a particular text, discussion of the textual integrity of films based on classic literature.
  2. Duplicates of films will be allowed for review but of course it’s a case of first in, so act fast. Whilst you are welcome to write more than one entry, there will be a limit of three posts per blog.
  3. This blogathon does focus on the classic era of Hollywood film – from the silent era to the 1960s. But please don’t let that hold you back, as all entries from all period will be happily accepted.
  4. All contributions must be new material only. Previously published posts will not be accepted.
  5. The blogathon will take place between April 3rd and 5th, 2020. Please submit your entries on either of these days or earlier if you wish. For those of you posting early, just remember that your entry won’t be linked until the event starts. 
  6. To express your interest in participating in the blogathon, you can so in the following ways:

 – please leave a comment on my blog along with the name and URL of your blog, and the subject you wish to cover

 – or you can always register by email at: For those of you who wish to register by email, please be sure to include the name and URL of your blog, and the topic you wish to cover.

Once you get confirmation, please spread the word about this blogathon by advertising the event on your blog and other social media. Please feel free to use one of these ads to advertise the event.

Looking forward to seeing you in April!

image (1)

image (3) copy 2

image (3) copy 3

image (3) copy

image (3)

image (3) copy

The CMBA Profiles Silver Screen Classics!


It was with the greatest thrill that the CMBA contacted me to inform me that they would be featuring my blog for their first CMBA profile for 2020. Needless to say, I was extremely excited, honoured and humbled by this incredible news!

As bloggers will tell you, being recognised is a great boost to the confidence and being acknowledged is an affirmation of one’s work.

My deepest and sincerest thanks go to the CMBA for the opportunity to be profiled!

For those interested, the link below will take you to the interview on the CMBA Page:

CMBA Profile: Silver Screen Classics



Death As Redemption in Film Noir

by Paul Batters


If there is one aspect of the noir universe which is a norm, it is the presence of violence and death. The dark streets are not only literal but metaphorical realities, where all manner of individuals become drawn into, seduced and even captured by the shadows of their own pathology. Anyone who has watched a noir film knows that there is a stark, cold fatalism with little empathy for those who test it. Everyone pays for their sins and indeed they may do so with interest. Like the loan shark who has their mark on a hook, the individual continues to pay and escape seems impossible.

There is another harsh reality that the only form of escape is ‘the big sleep’ – death. It is an inevitability that haunts all in the film noir universe and one that they are desperate to escape, despite this fatalist understanding. Having written on the nature of fatalism and futility in film noir before (see link here), this article will try to avoid these themes were possible and focus on the concept of death in film noir as also being a form of redemption – an understanding that sins must be paid for.

At the ultimate moment, it is arguable whether we seek redemption for past sins. There are enough stories of ‘death-bed confessions’ to fill a multitude of stadiums – and whilst on the face of it, such confessions seemed cliched, the truth is that such confessions are made during the last gasps of someone’s life. At the other end of the scale, even the most reticent to admit fault and seek forgiveness (at least in film noir) WILL pay the ultimate price.


Death as redemption in film noir is accepted at different stages in the arc of a character. Perhaps one of the most celebrated examples of this, is in a film noir classic and a template for its’ tropes, Billy Wilder’s Double Indemnity. Fatalism is evident at the start of the film, where a badly wounded Walter Neff (Fred MacMurray) goes into the insurance office he works at, to spill his guts on the Dictaphone of his boss and close friend, Barton Keyes (Edward G. Robinson). His opening lines are clearly the beginning of a confession; a mea culpa which will drive the story right to the very end. Neff doesn’t look for excuses nor does he try to explain away his sins by blaming others. Walter’s sins are his own and he takes full responsibility for them. True, in the dying moments of the film after being discovered by Keyes, Walter asks his friend to turn his back as he makes his getaway. But the truth is that it’s a half-hearted appeal for mercy, like a man on the scaffold hoping against hope for a pardon. As Walter collapses at the doorway, Keyes stays with him. Smoking a cigarette (and a beautiful touch with Wilder reversing the motif of Keyes never having a match), Walter waits for justice and redemption to arrive.

The ending is slightly ambiguous in terms of the nature of that justice. The audience never learns Walter’s fate – does he bleed to death in the doorway? Or is he taken to hospital only to recover and be executed for murder? In a now famous image amongst classic cinema fans, Walter Neff stands grim-faced in the gas chamber as Keyes looks on outside. But the scene was cut and the audience is left with a far-better ending. Walter seems to accept his fate and the acknowledgement that he needs to pay for what he has done.


Out Of The Past (1948), one of the finest examples of film noir, employs a similar approach to death as redemption. Jeff (Robert Mitchum) is a private detective who has been hired by bad guy Whit (Kirk Douglas) to find his girlfriend Kathie (Jane Greer). But whilst Jeff initially believes he has found happiness with Kathie, he discovers the truth too late and that Kathie is a classic femme fatale, who has duped both Jeff and her former lover. In the end, there is a chance for escape but Jeff takes a different option. Rather than running off with Kathie and her former lover’s money, he instead betrays her to the police. Despite her threat that she will throw him under the bus as well, Jeff still betrays Kathie, who fatally wounds him with a bullet. It is Jeff’s moment of redemption; he has ‘done the right thing’ in the face of so many wrongs and paid the ultimate price. Kathie will now face justice but the irony of course is that he has been redeemed through her murderous act of revenge. As Mark Conard points out, Jeff has made a ‘presumably redemptive sacrifice’.


But for Jeff it is also the end of great misery and unhappiness. Tortured by his choices, death has now removed all his pain and misery as well. In The Killers (1946), the Swede (Burt Lancaster) is a former boxer whose story is one which sees bad decisions made to impress a woman. His involvement in a bank robbery, even after a stint in prison, further exemplifies how far he slides into the darkness. All he finds is incredible misery and the woman he loves, Kitty (Ava Gardner) has used and duped him as well. When death finally comes to him in the form of the killers, the Swede accepts his fate and indeed even welcomes it. There is a relief in death, as an escape from the pain he has endured.  However, though he does not seek redemption per se, he doeshave regrets and acknowledges that he must accept the consequences for his choices. Whilst it may not be a question of a strict code of right and wrong, the Swede “got in wrong” and strayed from who he was. His death will now right that wrong, and again he will make payment for his crimes.

Tay Garnett’s The Postman Always Rings Twice (1946) is an excellent example of the protagonist finding redemption, and incidentally relief, through his own execution. Frank Chambers (John Garfield) is a man haunted by the murder he has committed for Cora (Lana Turner), the woman he loves. Their passionate relationship is one which is punctuated by betrayal, mistrust and sexual desire, and they are both riddled with moral corruption. Both will also pay for their sins – Cora through a car accident whilst Frank is driving and Frank as he sits on death row awaiting execution. Ironically, he is tried and convicted for Cora’s death and whilst initially protesting his innocence, Frank accepts that he has to pay for the murder he did commit. But of course, redemption runs deeper in the world of film noir. Frank believes that both he and Cora are paying for her husband’s murder and his acceptance of this acts as his redemption as well. Even more so, Frank is also devastated that Cora died not knowing how much Frank loved her and he prays that somehow her spirit will know this. In the end, Frank and Cora both pay and Frank’s final prayer is that by accepting his fate, redemption will mean that they are together in the next life.



In Anthony Mann’s Raw Deal (1948), Joe Sullivan (Dennis O’Keefe) escapes from prison with the help of his girlfriend Pat (Claire Trevor) but facing the complication of a dangerous mobster Rick (Raymond Burr) who wants Joe dead. In the finale, Rick and Joe, both wounded in a gunfight, with Rick thrown to his death. However, Joe also dies in the street with an acceptance of his fate and Pat noting that “This is right for Joe. This is what he wanted.”In essence, Joe’s dying face is not one contorted by fear, pain or panic but one filled with contentment. In some way he has found redemption, through the understanding that he needs to pay for his sins and that his death makes things right.


Of course, the deep-rooted cynicism of film noir would suggest that redemption is never available. The hard and bleak reality is that attempts at happiness (or perceived happiness) through crime are futile and hopeless. Yet an extension of that hopelessness and futility is a final desire for redemption and the desperate need for it. It also needs to be remembered that those caught up in the dark shadows are not necessarily professional criminals, gangsters and cops/private detectives (who are used to walking tough streets) but ordinary people who are drawn into the depths. In Sorry, Wrong Number (1948), Henry Stevenson (Burt Lancaster) is drawn into a world of crime because of his deep-rooted dissatisfaction in both his personal and professional life. At the very last second, he desperately realises what he has done but its’ too late to turn things around.

Ultimately, everyone pays a price. Femme fatales rarely walk away and even the innocent are wrongly accused or face prison or death. Yet death brings a finality which cannot be reversed. As a result, it brings a new dimension whilst drawing on tropes as old as religion – that redemption is possible, if the price is paid. In the world of film noir, that is the ultimate price.

Paul Batters teaches secondary school History in the Illawarra region and also lectures at the University Of Wollongong. In a previous life, he was involved in community radio and independent publications. Looking to a career in writing, Paul also has a passion for film history.


The Sunshine Blogger Award – Brightening Up A Blog!

by Paul Batters


It’s a real thrill to be acknowledged by a fellow blogger whose work you respect and enjoy. We rarely receive that acknowledgement and to be nominated by by Zoe K at Hollywood Genes is certainly thrilling! I cannot thank you enough for your kindness, Zoe!

As Zoe pointed out in her acceptance, it’s a great deal of fun to receive the award because the questions allow for introspection that we rarely give to ourselves.  So without further ado, let’s get into the conditions for the Sunshine Blogger Award.

The Rules

  1. Thank the person who nominated you and provide a link to their blog.
  2. Answer the eleven questions from the blogger who nominated you.
  3. Nominate eleven bloggers.
  4. Create eleven new questions for your nominees to answer.

Here are my answers to Zoe’s questions:

The Questions

1). Whose biography would you want to write and why would you pick that person?

James Murray. I became fascinated by his story when I read ‘Hollywood Babylon’ as a kid (which I know is heavy with inaccuracies) but was even more fascinated after finally watching ‘The Crowd’ which is one of my favourite films and an exceptional artwork. There are myths regarding James Murray’s life that need to be cleared up and indeed there’s a lot we don’t know either. There’s something tragic about his story and so many themes to examine that I think it would be challenging and very interesting to research and find out more about the man.



2). What is a film that people would be shocked to find out you haven’t seen?

I’ve avoided many of the Marvel and DC films, particularly the most recent ones. I’m so tired of ‘over-the-top’ CGI nonsense and noise. And for the record I was a huge Marvel comic fan from the 70s onwards (and still am!). But if I had a free ticket to go, I wouldn’t nor couldn’t be bothered to see any of those films. Not judging anyone who likes them – it’s just my taste.

3). Which favorite book of yours has never been made (or made properly) into a movie? If it were, who would you cast in the lead roles?

Definitely Budd Schulberg’s book ‘What Makes Sammy Run?’ – not because it’s a favourite per se as many books I love have been made into films but because it’s a powerful book and should be made. I know and understand the stories behind why it’s never been made as a film, as it is a terrifyingly cynical view of the film industry.
In terms of casting, it’s very difficult which might also explain why it was never made. But I’ll take my best shot, using actors from the classic era.


Al Mannheim: Dana Andrews
Sammy Glick: Frank Sinatra
Cathy ‘Kit’ Sargent: Teresa Wright
Sidney Fineman: James Gleason
‘Sheik’: Anthony Quinn
Laurette Harrington: Martha Hyer
Carter Judd: Jeffrey Hunter
Rosalie Goldblaum: Cathy O’Donnell

4). Which blog post did you spend the most time researching and/or writing and what was it about? 

It would have to be ‘Fatalism And Futility In Film Noir’. It’s over 4,000 words and I really focused on it a great deal. Of course I re-watched the films I discussed a number of times, as well as read some critical work and reviews to immerse myself in the essence of what I wanted to write. I think it came out ok!

Here’s the link: Fatalism And Futility In Film Noir

5). When and why did you start blogging?

I began in 2016 for a few reasons; I have always loved classic film and wanted to write about it. The advice that kept popping up in my face was quite simple – just DO IT. It was also an avenue to developing an idea for a book (which I am still working on) nI finally took on the challenge and whilst I have been disillusioned and disheartened at times, I’ve tried to remember why I started writing in the first place and I am starting to get my mojo back.

It’s also a desire to keep alive an appreciation of classic cinema, at a time when it is slowly being eroded away and diminished by so many factors. Researching and writing about classic cinema is also a fantastic way of learning more and I wanted that to be a key part of the reason I started blogging.

The key with writing is simple yet difficult at the same time – just WRITE. Even if they come out terrible, the process is still cathartic as well as being a learning opportunity.

6). You’re hosting a themed Halloween party. Which book or film would you use as the theme and in what ways?

It would be Roman Polanski’s film The Fearless Vampire Killers – simply because it would give everyone a chance to become a creature of the night. Everyone of course would be dressed in period piece, the party would be held in a beautiful old ballroom for everyone to dance the night away and the hired staff (suitably attired) would be on duty to provide everyone with enough food and beverages and keep them satisfied.
For those who are interested, there would be viewing rooms with different classic and not so classic horror films playing – and of course the decorations would be appropriate to the evening.



7). What was the last film you saw that really blew you away and why?

The Irishman. Not only were there incredible performances from De Niro and Pacino, but there was also the reminder of why I miss Joe Pesci so much on the big screen. Ray Romano was no slouch and perfectly cast. A tour de force of a film!

8). Marry, Kiss, or Kill: Which film character would you marry, which would you share a hot, pre-code kiss with, and which would you kill like a noir anti-hero or villain(ess) with a score to settle? (And why did you pick these 3?)

Marry: Nora Charles (Myrna Loy). That is assuming Nick was deceased and she was available. (I know that sounds awful but…it is Myrna Loy after all! To spend a lifetime with such a gorgeous gal would be heaven!)


Kiss: Marian Martin (Joan Crawford). Locking lips with a hell of a sexy pre-code dame like Joan Crawford would send the temperature soaring!


Kill: Tommy Udo (Richard Widmark). He’s a sadistic, mad dog and dangerous as hell!


9). Which film character’s closet would you love to raid?

Why any character being played by Cary Grant of course!



10). Recast Star Wars using early Hollywood (silent to 1940s) actors and actresses then recast Casablanca with modern actors and actresses (1990s to today).

I’ve also placed the original players next to the recast actors and actresses.

Star Wars 
Luke – Jackie Cooper

Han – Clark Gable

Leia – Olivia de Havilland

Obi-wan Kenobi – Sir Cedric Hardwicke

Darth Vader – Claude Rains (Voice)

Grand Moff Tarkin – Boris Karloff

Rick – George Clooney

Ilsa – Monica Bellucci

Victor – Christoph Waltz

Sam – Jamie Foxx

Captain Renault – Jean Dujardin

Major Strasser – Mads Mikkelsen

Signor Ferrari – Anthony Hopkins

Ugarte – Steve Buscemi


11). You were working in the lab, late one night, when your eyes beheld an eerie sight. What was it and what did you do?

The hour was beyond the clock, as I looked dazedly upon my work. Was it finished? Was it complete? Was what lay before me everything that I had sweated, ached and poured my heart out for? Or was there more to do?How long had I toiled and found myself lost in the seemingly infinite depths of trying to perfect my creation! Yet at every turn there were obstacles; some I had placed there, the rest beyond my control – or so I told myself. The distinction between perseverance and madness had long blurred and I could not remember the last time I had spoken to someone about the weather or sat at the table to eat. Indeed, what was finally driving me to complete my work was something I could not ascertain, even when I deigned to find some moments of peace in disturbed sleep. Even then the only reason I closed my eyes was a justification to allow myself to recover to continue my work.
And so at that point, I slumped in my seat and felt my arms fall lifelessly by my side. It was enough. There was no more that I could do.
Yet something compelled me to turn to my right, as if a presence was watching me. Finding myself torn between daring to look and pretending there was nothing there, I nonetheless apprehensively turned slowly towards an apparition beyond my wildest nightmares.
Staring at me was a figure so grotesque that I could not scream. As I opened my mouth in silent horror, the figure did the same, as if it were mocking my terror and laughing inside at my frozen fear. Its eyes were large and dark, sunken in what appeared to be the hollows of a long dead oak, with hair hanging down bedraggled over its’ face. Its pale face was fixated on me like a predator eyeing its’ prey and as I instinctively raised my hand in some pathetic attempt to fend it off, I saw it too raise its’ fiendish arm as if ready to strike.
Rising slowly out of my chair, the figure also stood and I knew that at any moment, it may rush at me and inflict violence upon me. Determined to defend myself, I saw its’ face contort into a horrific mask of contemptuous violence.
My fists clenched into red knuckled balls of fury.
And waited. Bracing myself for the attack to come.
But then I noticed a change in my tormentor’s face, as it looked at me questioningly. I, too, found myself staring back, realising that I knew who it was and the realisation hit me like a thousand thunderbolts all at once…
I touched the mirror with the tips of my fingers before turning back to my creation and hitting the ‘Publish’ button on the screen. Sleep beckoned…

The 11 Nominees For The Sunshine Blogger Award

Down These Mean Streets – Musings Of A Noir Dame

Four Star Film Fan

Wolffian Classic Movies Digest

B Noir Detour


Queen Of The Lot Blog

Diary Of A Movie Maniac

Cinema Essentials

The Classic Movie Muse

Moon In Gemini

Once Upon A Screen

The Questions

My questions are a mixed bag of my own and others that Zoe.K was given so I hope you find them interesting!

1. Which actor or actress who hasn’t received an Oscar do you think deserves one? And for what film?

2. Who is your favourite child actor and name a film they were in which you love.

3. If a biopic was made of you during the classic film era (1920s to 1960s), who would you like to play you and why?

4. Which famous starry couple (of any time and place) would you want as neighbours?

5. Of all the classic monsters, which one do you feel associated with and why?

6. Is there a classic era actor/actress that you have a crush on?

7. If there was ONE actor or actress (living or deceased) whom you could interview for your blog, who would it be and why would you choose that person?

8. Which film character’s closet would you love to raid?

9. Marry, Kiss, or Kill: Which film character would you marry, which would you share a hot, pre-code kiss with, and which would you kill like a noir anti-rhero or villain(ess) with a score to settle? (And why did you pick these 3?)

10. Of all the classic film studios, which is your favourite and why?

11. Choose a film where you would love to change the ending. Explain what that change would be and why you would do it.

Well, I hope you take part and of course totally understand if you cannot or would prefer not to. However, I thoroughly recommend it as it’s a great deal of fun and certainly is a pleasure and honour to be nominated. Happy blogging everyone! And I’m looking forward to reading your responses.

Paul Batters teaches secondary school History in the Illawarra region and also lectures at the University Of Wollongong. In a previous life, he was involved in community radio and independent publications. Looking to a career in writing, Paul also has a passion for film history.


Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960): The Essence Of Gothic Horror

by Paul Batters



On those cold nights when the winds howl, the rain is falling and perhaps even the lightning startles the dark sky, who has felt the need to immerse themselves in the deep abyss of a Gothic tale? Whether it be a book or a film, the atmosphere of dread, gloom and fear takes us down dark corridors through ancient mansions and past a myriad of doors behind which are secrets which shock us to the bone. We seem to be drawn to what lurks in the shadows and our curiosities are aroused. The Gothic tale, born in the era of Romanticism, has been interpreted and presented in fascinating ways and its’ themes and tropes are ever-present in popular culture. Whilst initially the classic Gothic tale was bound to its’ British and European origins, it has found life in the ‘New World’, with the term American Gothic also becoming a mainstay in literature (think Edgar Allan Poe!).

But with the birth of film, there was a new way of telling stories and Hollywood was not slow to exploit Gothic literature to not only tell stories but use the visual medium to its’ own advantage and establish a new way of telling stories. From the silent era to the present, Gothic horror has both fascinated and terrified us. Of all the directors who were adroit in bringing Gothic horror to the screen, none were as expert or as influential as Alfred Hitchcock. He was no stranger to Gothic literature, having made Rebecca(1940) and even drew on Gothic tropes when making Notorious (1946); and of course would later re-visit Gothic horror with The Birds (1963).

Hitchcock had long been considered a master of the thriller by the time he made Psycho. Loosely based on the infamous Ed Gein case, the film has oft been considered the beginning of a new wave of horror film and in some regards a precursor to the slasher film that would emerge in the 1970s. Yet it is far more than that and indeed. As Misha Kavka points out in The Cambridge Companion to Gothic Fiction:

“Gothic film brings a set of recognizable elements based in distinct visual codes. Such codes constitute the language, or the sign system, of the Gothic film”

If ever a film had all the hallmarks of a Gothic horror film, then Psycho has them in spades.

(Warning! Be prepared for spoilers!)

The House

The infamous (or famous, depending on your viewpoint) house is perhaps the most powerfully visual and recognisable Gothic element in the film. Once we start to unpack the powerful symbolism of the Victorian mansion, we discover there are incredible depths to what it reveals.

Art historian Rose Heichelbech states that Hitchcock used Edward Hopper’s The House By the Railroad (1925) (below) as the basis for the Bates’ Mansion. But unlike the bright water colours of Hopper’s work, Hitchcock has drained the colour through filming in black and white, leaving a house bathed in greys which give the house an omnipresence which informs the film. Sitting high on the small hill and imposing in its’ nature, its’ looming dominance highlights the relationship between Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) and his mother (which of course taps into another Gothic theme later to be explored). Later when Marion (Janet Leigh) and Norman speak of being unable to escape ‘traps’, the house certainly comes to mind as what Norman finds inescapable.


House by the Railroad, by Edward Hopper

Not only does the house become a symbol of dominance and a foreboding presence over the characters but it is also a strong symbol of values and morals that belong in another era, in complete contrast to the present which could be represented by the Bates Motel below. Both buildings also represent Norman’s fractured state of mind, which in the end will be challenged to the point of breaking completely. In fact, despite the motel also suggesting a new progressive world on the move and the house representing ‘stability’, both are isolated from that same progress; particularly with the new highway built away from the motel. Like the classic Gothic house in literature, those who live there are thus isolated from society, wallowing in their stagnation and living in seclusion from the changes that are occurring in the larger world. They grasp onto the past with desperation which is also transforms into madness and insanity.


The house holds a fascination for the audience, especially one so old and steeped in history. What secret does it hold inside? What if those walls could talk?  Indeed, the house remains one of the best advertisements for the film and would feature in trailers at the time. Hitchcock knew that the house had a life and spirit of its’ own – as it always has had in the Gothic tradition.

Dark Secrets

If Psycho holds its’ audience with incredible tension from the opening, it’s through the power of secrets. In Gothic literature, secrets run deep and dark, and their exposure reveals trauma, anxieties and conflict. In Psycho, these are already evident in a sexualised and lascivious way, as we become voyeurs to the illicit affair between Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) and Sam Loomis (John Gavin). But far darker are the secrets that will only slowly be revealed regarding Norman. All appearances will be shattered and the dark secrets within the Bates family exposed.


Again in terms of the house, the audience is desperate to look inside and see what it is hiding. When that chance arrives, we discover a house filled with antiquity and bejewelled in trinkets and fashion from a different era. Of course, the most shocking and terrible secret will be revealed in the deepest and darkest place in the house – the cellar. As in Gothic literature, the terrifying familial secrets in the Bates family provide the psychological reasoning for Norman’s mental state and perversities.

Corpses and Corruption

By corruption, the Gothic trope of death and decay comes to mind. But what also permeates is the corruption of the mental state and the decay of a family into madness. Strangely enough, corpses are not left to rot per se but are ‘stuffed and mounted’ (through Norman’s ‘hobby’ of taxidermy) and of course, he goes much further than that!


Norman sustains his insanity via the corpse of his mother and though physically dead, her presence is elaborately constructed and becomes a reality in Normans’ world. Any Freudian can go into great detail about the Oedipal complexities at play.

Madness and Insanity

The incredible twist in the tale hits the audience in the climactic scene in the cellar, where the truth behind Norman is revealed. Initially, the audience believes that Norman is a shy yet pleasant enough young man, who may have some serious mother issues – until his perverse ‘peeping Tom’ moment as Marion gets ready for her shower. The audience is also led down the garden path, when Norman and ‘Mother’ conversations  are heard. Yet even then there is no indication of what will follow.


When Norman states with a smile ‘She just goes a little mad sometimes’, it becomes the forewarning for what will come – Norman as his own mother committing horrific crimes on his behalf. His personality is constantly at war with himself until the ‘mother’ part of him ‘wins’ the battle.

In Psycho, insanity and madness result in horrific violence and the infamous shower scene (which has been definitively unpacked and analysed a thousand times over) shifts the film’s narrative from the heroine to Norman Bates. The moment still shocks and is much a rape as it is a brutal murder. Again, the climax will reveal the full and terrible truth to Norman’s insanity.

And of course, the split personality is also suggestive of the darkness of secrets, and what is revealed to and hidden from the world.

The Heroine

Marion is the classic Gothic heroine – finding herself in danger and indeed even placing herself there, initially through her own act of stealing the money. Her own conscience pursues her, and she constructs conversations which question what she does. What makes Marion a classic Gothic heroine is that like her predecessors in classic Gothic literature, she’s a breaker of convention and seeks independence to find happiness in her life. The traditional role constructed for her by middle America is not enough.




Her pulling into the Bates Motel is a fateful one, a trope also present in Gothic fiction, and of course the pouring rain and gloomy atmosphere further adds to the strong Gothic overtones. The stormy night is an ominous sign that something bad will happen and indeed it is a terrible shock to the audience when it does. Marion’s horrific ending in the shower, is a ‘punishment’ for her deeds (as much as a reflection of Hitchcock’s pathology) but it also reflects the physical and emotional pain that the heroine traditionally experiences.

Mood And Atmosphere

From Saul Bass’ opening credits, underpinned by the anxious musical score and split titles, the tension is heightened and the audience knows they are going to be weighted down by it. The audience peering into the window find an attractive couple half-undressed but despite the sexualised scene, their conversation is one of despair and hopelessness, already setting a negative tone.

Marion’s flight from Phoenix with the stolen money thus drives the narrative into one of heightened tension, which is worsened for us by her interactions with the cop and the car salesman. Her nervous and an anxious state therefore becomes ours.

But of course, as Marion drives through the stormy night to find refuge in the Bates Motel, it evokes for the audience the familiar Gothic trope of the traveller lost in the storm and finding themselves in an old isolated house filled with dark secrets and danger (i.e Wuthering Heights, The Old Dark House). Again, the looming shadow of the house with darkened skies above it adds to the gloomy atmosphere.

Of course the audience enters the house itself, it is antiquated and frozen in another time, as well as being terribly silent and filled with shadows.

And of course the decision by Hitchcock to film in monochrome certainly helps shape the Gothic atmosphere!

Psycho would become one of Hitchcock’s most successful and well-known films. It is not only a superb thriller which still never fails to shock; it is also a superb example of the Gothic horror film.


This article has been proudly submitted for the Gothic Horror Blogathon hosted by Gabriella at Pale Writer . Please click on the link to read other fantastic entries!

Paul Batters teaches secondary school History in the Illawarra region and also lectures at the University Of Wollongong. In a previous life, he was involved in community radio and independent publications. Looking to a career in writing, Paul also has a passion for film history. 

The Frankenstein Monster: Boris Karloff And His Incredible Portrayal

by Paul Batters


Of all the monsters in the pantheon of the ‘children of the night’, perhaps none have had such an impact on the sympathies of an audience as the Frankenstein Monster. Many films have been made where Shelly’s Gothic tale is told or at least appropriated. Yet none have ever been able to match Boris Karloff’s performance as Dr. Frankenstein’s near-immortal creation.

This discussion does not aim to focus on the mechanics of the film-making process of the first three films nor their storylines; insomuch that if they are brought up, it’s done so as a reflection of Karloff’s performance. Indeed, a great deal of discussion and discourse has already covered the making of the three films I would like to focus on. If anything, this is a celebration of Karloff’s portrayal.

In popular culture, the Frankenstein Monster has become reduced to a mindless brute – a near-indestructible automaton whose brain can be as interchangeable as a car-battery and is easily identified by his stiff walk and arms stretched out in front of him. With respect to Universal Studios, who played just as important a role as Dr. Frankenstein in bringing him to life, they are greatly responsible in creating this image. Indeed, mention the name ‘Frankenstein’ and the vast majority of people will identify the name as that being of the Monster and not the family name of its’ creator. Even in the Universal world, three other actors other than Karloff (Lon Chaney Jnr, Bela Lugosi and Glenn Strange) all portrayed the Monster to varying degrees of success yet adding to the demotion of the Monster from the brilliant portrayal borne of Karloff to the aforementioned description. If ever a creature from the dark went through a more incredible array of change in character, none were marked than the Frankenstein Monster.

What audiences need to be reminded of is the pathos and touching humanity that truly embodied Frankenstein’s creation, reflected so beautifully by Boris Karloff. As a result, I will speak of the Frankenstein ‘trilogy’ because they feature the great man and are without a doubt the best of the Universal films, after which admittedly they would later denigrate into exploitation, particularly after Karloff left the role.


Frankenstein (1931) deserves its’ place as one of the most important films in cinema, let alone its’ position as one of the greatest horror films of all time. Unlike its’ equally important predecessor Dracula (1931), it has held up well and has some of the most memorable cinematic moments in film history. As important as James Whales’ direction was, his pick of a 44-year old bit part actor was far more important and fortuitous. Whale could see there was something about Karloff’s face and personality that he couldn’t quite put his finger but knew intuitively would work. If the film and of course the Monster belongs to anyone, it’s Karloff.

The birth of the Monster is without doubt one of the greatest moments in film. The mad machinery will galvanise the Monster, the moving of the hand and the hysterical rantings of Dr. Frankenstein (Colin Clive), who is in the incredible heights of rapture as he ‘knows what it feels like to be God’, all remain as iconic moments in classic horror. Even here, without seeing Karloff’s face, he is able to act with one hand to convey life coming to what had moments before been a dead cadaver.

But out first view of the Monster’s face is that moment when Karloff became the star. Whale built the tension even further by having Karloff walk in backwards to be followed by that slow turn and the close cutting to that horrific face. Lurching forward at his creator, he shuffles forward following Frankenstein’s commands to sit in a chair. The stiffened movements are like that of a child learning to walk but the doctor’s creation is not a child. He’s a reanimated human jigsaw, complete with a ‘criminal brain’ – a plot device non-existent in the novel, which would forever be associated with the Monster. Initially there appears to be no emotion, and Karloff’s heavy-lidded eyes and sunken cheeks evoke in the audience a dread and horror that will soon turn to empathy and understanding. And it’s all a result of Karloff’s mastery. Again, without any words, his pleading eyes and desperate need for warmth and light, breaks the dread  we feel but he is soon faced with not only being ignored but then completely rejected and treated horrifically at the hands of his creator, his former mentor Dr. Waldman (Edward Van Sloan) and his cruel and sadistic assistant Fritz (Dwight Frye). By the time we see the Monster in chains in the bowels of the place where he was born, the audience begins to wonder who the real monsters are, with Karloff beautifully portraying a poor and confused being who did not ask to be born and surrounded by hostility from his first interactions with humans.

But murder will follow; Fritz will pay for torturing the Monster once too often and then Dr Waldman before he is about to dissect and examine the drugged Monster. Karloff portrays the Monster with a hungered and desperate confusion, but he is also far more complex than it may appear; a far cry from the mindless shell that stomps around in later films. Karloff’s Monster is the abandoned child who knows nothing of the world and when he finally does find a human connection with a small child (Mildred Harris), it will end in tragedy. As an aside, the re-edited version that was re-released in 1938 and would show on TV screens for decades, was un-intentionally far more suggestive of the Monster doing something far more horrifc to Maria. 

When both creator and creation finally do face each other again, Karloff exudes menace and anger at the God-parent who has rejected him. Dragging Frankenstein to the top of an old windmill whilst being pursued by the enraged villagers, Karloff’s Monster is again surrounded by hostility and violence. His end comes as he is consumed by the flames that he so fears and does not understand, panicked and screaming in terror (a far cry from the final Universal film of the classic horror monsters which shows him walking stupidly into burning flames). It is a terrible end for a being that did not ask to be created, abandoned to the cruelty of a world he does not understand, all beautifully conveyed by the mastery of Boris Karloff.


But of course it is not the end. Universal realised that the real star of the film was not Colin Clive but Karloff and the resulting Bride Of Frankenstein (1935), is a far better produced film, with a beautiful musical score by Franz Waxman (which was notably absent from the first film) and far greater liberties taken by Whale as director in terms of themes. The film, thus, is a masterpiece with the story continuing where the last film left off. There are some cast changes and the inclusion of Una O’Connor as Minnie, a servant in the Frankenstein household, reflects Whale’s eccentric humour. (As an aside, I find O’Connor’s screeching an almighty annoyance and her being in the film is superfluous). As the audience discovers, the Monster has survived but burnt and injured, fleeing into the woods for refuge. But not after committing two more murders.

Again, Karloff’s portrayal transcends the make-up and indeed his work from the first film. Wracked with hunger and desperate for basic human connection, his struggles seem to be over when he meets a blind hermit (O.P Heggie). The kindness and genuine humanity of the scenes that follow are touching and beautiful, and Karloff shines as he hears the prayer of gratitude given by the blind hermit, seemingly amazed by the beauty of words he has never heard before. As the hermit cries, a tear also runs down the Monster’s cheek and he comforts the weeping old man. Here Karloff shows that his portrayal is not of a Monster but a lost soul, who seeks only friendship and love. Much has been said and disputed about the scene; regardless it is as the Hermit states ‘two lonely souls who have found each other’.

Another first for the Monster is that he learns to talk. It appears he has been living with the Hermit for some time, as wounds have healed and he has learned to speak. The words, of course, are basic and the word ‘friend’ is closest to the Monster’s heart. Karloff was against the Monster speaking, feeling that it meant something was lost. With the greatest of respect to the man, this reviewer feels it does not detract from the portrayal and indeed holds firm textual integrity with the original novel, where the Monster not only speaks but is articulate. His desperate need for expression starts to grow and after losing his friend and sanctuary in the Hermit, he is again pursued and abused.

Despite being captured and briefly shown in the now famous ‘crucifixion’ pose (hence highlighting his treatment as an outcast and misfit outside the sensibilities of society to be persecuted), he breaks out, using his incredible strength and thus also planting a seed to another important trope. Karloff again shapes a menacing figure as he makes his way through a graveyard, only to enter a crypt and marvel at the face of a corpse. Despite the necrophiliac-like suggestion, the Monster finally has someone who will not reject him. But during this fateful moment, he will meet and make a new ‘friend’ in the form of the notorious Dr. Pretorius (Ernest Thesiger) whom the audience knows is planning to create life from the dead with Frankenstein. It is also an important moment of consciousness for the Monster as he verbally acknowledges that he knows Frankenstein made him from the dead, after which the Monster intones: ‘I like dead’. Pretorious responds, ‘You’re wise in your generation’. But here the Monster will be manipulated (or allow himself to be) in order to achieve his deepest desire, a friend – or more to the point, a ‘wife’.

Karloff presents a cruel side to the Monster as he joins Pretorius in forcing and bullying Frankenstein into creating a friend for him. But his brutal menace melts when he first sees his ‘bride’ (Elsa Lanchester). His happiness turns to depression and resignation, noting that his rejection by the world is now complete. Deciding to end it all, he tells Frankenstein and his wife to ‘Go! You Live!’ but warns Pretorius to stay and as he declares ‘We belong dead’, the lever is pulled and the whole laboratory with the Monster is blown to atoms. Again, we see the Monster shed a tear as he looks longingly at his ‘wife’, still desperate for love.

Karloff’s expression of the Monster transcended the first film, not only because he actually spoke but because Karloff was given greater screen time and there was the recognition that he was the real star. If empathy with the Monster was felt by the audience, it is most evident in Bride Of Frankenstein. The damaged Monster is not only physically hurt but wounded deep within, so much that he wants to end his life. Karloff is superb and whilst the film could not have existed without the first, it is an outstanding film. Again, as he did in the 1931 production, Karloff surpasses the make-up with a powerful range of emotion conveyed through his incredible skills and the intuitive powers he held as an actor.

Bride Of Frankenstein was the high point of chiller genius at Universal, and whilst there were solid and successful films in the horror cycle which followed, it is difficult to place them on the same pedestal. The amount of horror films began to dwindle afterwards and the few that were released did not have the level of quality that had first enthralled audiences. But other changes had occurred as well; the new Breen Code, the banning of horror films in Britain and even changes at Universal Studios itself would all have a major impact. However, in 1938, the double billing of Dracula and Frankensteinwas a huge hit and Universal decided to start a second cycle of horror, starting with the production of Son Of Frankenstein (1939).


The casting of Basil Rathbone as the late Baron’s son, Wolf, was quite a coup and the focus of the film does move to him. Without the direction of James Whale (who had lost the desire to direct), the appointment was given to Rowland V. Lee, who whilst competent and interesting in his vision, cannot bring to the screen the magic touch of Whale. It also didn’t help that the script was incomplete and changes were consistently coming in each day. More importantly for this discussion, the former looming presence of the Monster was reduced to a haunting spectre at least until later in the film. After the heights of the first two films, Karloff’s portrayal becomes somewhat muted, explained in the plot as the result of the psychological and physical traumas that he has endured. Whilst in the previous films, the Monster was a figure of fear, menace and horror, he would be now reduced to one of curiosity. Indeed when the audience first sees the Monster, he is weak, barely alive and in a coma. But the inherent scientific curiosity of Wolf demands that he bring the Monster back to consciousness. 

The sets are fantastic and Rathbone’s performance is memorable, as well as that of Lionel Atwill as the Police Chief. But ironically, the one man who steals the film from everyone, even Karloff,  is Bela Lugosi as the evil and twisted Ygor. It is perhaps the meatiest and most interesting role since his star turn as Dracula, and if ever there was the ‘sideman’s revenge’ for Lugosi, than this was it.


There ARE moments where the Monster’s humanity shines through; his anger at seeing himself in the mirror and the depths of his self-consciousness emerging, the relationship with Peter, the Baron’s son and the howl he gives when he find Ygor’s body, perhaps reminiscent of his role in The Old Dark House as Morgan, the brutal butler weeping over the body of Saul. But sadly, there is the foreshadowing of the tropes that will soon take hold in the mind of the public when it comes to the Monster. He follows the commands of Ygor without question, and whilst this emerges to some degree in Bride Of Frankenstein, there is a sinister motive to the Monster’s relationship with Pretorius. Now, he is nothing more than a mindless slave being used for Ygor’s mad schemes. This will be repeated ad nauseum in future films. Gone is the desperate and futile search by the Monster for his sense of self and an answer to his creation. The range of emotions once present are missing and we see a Monster that is flat and limited in scope.

Ygor and Monster

Additionally, the concept of the Monster being almost ‘super-human’ and indestructible emerges, particularly when Wolf states: Two bullets in his heart but he still lives! And even when he is pushed into a boiling pit of sulphur at the end, the audience has already been trained that it’s not really the end. Karloff is still imposing as the Monster particularly in the final scenes but he could see the writing on the wall. He would never play the Monster again in a major film and lamented the direction in which his beloved Monster was headed. Son Of Frankenstein is still a lot of fun and deserves applause for its’ strong cast and exceptional photography. It’s a tight film and the direction holds it together, with an eerie atmosphere on an outstanding designed set. But something seems to be amiss.


Karloff would never pour scorn on those actors who followed him in the role, for he was too kind and humble to do so. He did, however, feel that the make-up was doing all the work, even during the filming of Son Of Frankenstein. He felt that the character ‘no longer had any potentialities’ but added that ‘anyone who can take that make-up every morning deserves respect’. Karloff adored the Monster and would forever state that he owed it everything, giving credit to everyone from Whale to make-up artist Jack Pierce, characteristically excluding himself. It must have deeply affected this true gentleman when the Monster became the butt of jokes, which he had always hoped would never happen. When asked to assist in the promotion of Abbot And Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948), he reportedly stated that he was happy to do so ‘as long as he didn’t have to see the picture’. Indeed, as much ‘fun’ as the Universal Pictures of the 1940s are, the menace of the Monster from the early 1930s means that the films initially were not meant to be fun and the dark fairy-tale essence of the first horror cycle is missing.

Sadly, to a public long trained to accept popular culture’s depiction of the Monster (now named Frankenstein), the brilliant portrayal of Karloff seems distant. Yet if one truly wishes to discover the origins of the cinematic Monster, they need only need turn to the original trilogy and watch a master at work. Karloff always praised others, such as Jack Pierce for the make-up. But Karloff did what no-one else has been able to do – he transcended the make-up and costume and blended it into his own fascinating and deeply motivated portrayal. Karloff claims he owed his career to the Monster but the Monster owed everything to Karloff as well.

Paul Batters teaches secondary school History in the Illawarra region and also lectures at the University Of Wollongong. In a previous life, he was involved in community radio and independent publications. Looking to a career in writing, Paul also has a passion for film history. 

A Little Sunshine To Brighten The Grey: Receiving The Liebster Award


Recently I received the most pleasant and humbling surprise, when I found myself nominated for the Liebster Award by Erica at Poppity Talks Classic Film. Erica is a fellow classic film fan and blogger whose wonderful support has helped keep me inspired and connected to writing my own blog. Her own outstanding blog featuring exceptional writing and is a must to visit and follow for its’ high standards and highly intelligent insights into classic film. Most importantly, Erica’s passion and love for classic film is wonderfully infectious and best of all, one will always learn from her writing. I am deeply honoured and humbled to be nominated by someone who is an exceptional writer and comes at a time when my own personal doubts have taken their toll. Erica, your nomination will never be forgotten, and my thanks and appreciation are beyond words!

As bloggers may know (and using Erica’s own words), The Liebster Award is thought to have originated around 2011 and “is a way to be discovered but also to connect and support the blogging community.”

After receiving a nomination, you earn the award by following a series of steps.

They are as follows:

  1. Thank the nominator in your award post.
  2. Place the award logo somewhere on your blog.
  3. You must state 11 facts about yourself.
  4. Complete the 11 questions that your nominator provided.
  5. Nominate as many bloggers as you’d like (11 is the maximum).
  6. Ask your nominees a series of questions (11 is the maximum).

So as they say in classic comedy: ‘and away we go!’

11 Facts About Myself

1. I am a recovering chocaholic – whose habits have had to be curbed for health reasons. To say this is a personal tragedy is an understatement, in the pursuit of preventing a further and far greater tragedy (in my humble opinion).

2. Aside from watching classic film, a little slice of paradise for me is a breakfast on my own near the ocean where I grew up. Poached eggs on thick wholemeal toast with a side of crispy bacon, a cappuccino and the Sydney Morning Herald (an outstanding Australian newspaper). It’s also an integral aspect of my own personal mental health plan.

3. Books are one of my key vices and old books are my weakness. I struggle to part with them and need extensions to house the books waiting for a home. I mainly purchase books on classic literature, history, politics, biographies, music and of course, film.

4. I love a good cigar – my favourite is a Monte Cristo No.2. But I’m very partial to H. Upmann, Cohiba and Casa Torano. Accompanied by a Cles Des Duc Armagnac or a good port, and a good friend to share it and chat with is also a slice of paradise for me.


Robert Donat Aiming a Muzzle-Loader Gun

5. My favourite exercise is swimming and outside of winter, I try to swim at least 1km a day.

6. As much as I loved playing basketball when I was young (and I mean loved), I see no point in being a spectator at a game. You may as well give each side 80 points and ten minutes to play. (I know that sounds bad).

7. As a child I had two major dreams – to become a fast bowler for the Australian Cricket Team (my hero was 70s/80s legendary Australian fast bowler Dennis Lillee) and to become Ace Frehley, the lead guitarist for Kiss (my other hero). Preferably both consecutively. (Well, I was a kid…)

Dennis Lillee_0


8. On my bucket-list is attending the TCM Film Festival and finally getting a chance to meet some of the wonderful classic film fans I’ve met through blogging and social media.

9. My father was English and so I am a bit of an Anglophile. There was a steady television diet of British comedies and drama as I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s – and I still watch them.

10. My love for 1970s American cop shows borders on obsession with a growing DVD collection including Kojak, The Streets Of San Francisco, Starsky And Hutch, Police Woman and other titles.

11. A very embarrassing admittance: I cry like a baby when I hear The Way We Were by Barbara Streisand. (Look we all have our triggers!)

11 Questions Provided By Erica

1. What kind of toppings do you like putting on your pizza?

I used to be a multiple topping guy but these days I keep it plain and simple – ham and cheese with oregano. Or pepperoni.

2. Who was you first celebrity crush?

Kim Wilde (80s British singer). But I think I was also a little in love with Lyndsay Wagner (The Bionic Woman).

3. Name one classic film star, one contemporary film star and one modern film star who you find to be overrated. Why?

Classic Film Star – June Allyson. Never warmed to her and doesn’t have screen presence for me.

Contemporary Film Star – Julia Roberts. Just ugh!

Modern Film Star – Nicholas Cage. Looks permanently constipated and he just grates on me.

4. Have you ever flown first class?

Yes. From Chicago to L.A. I was upgraded and very surprised! I was flying from Montreal back to Australia and had to make three flight. Even if it was only a four hour flight from Chicago to L.A, I absolutely loved it and appreciated the break from Economy.

5. What is your favourite holiday to celebrate?

Christmas. Without a doubt! In Australia, it’s in the middle of summer and during our big school break, so it’s a wonderful time. I still get a fresh tree and refuse to go plastic. Sadly, television has become disgraceful and woeful in presenting classic film and television shows but I’ve made up for it. My kids all know and love the Rankin Bass Christmas shows (which I have on DVD) and a multitude of classic Christmas cartoons. As a family we all watch the familiar classic Christmas films such as Miracle On 34th Street (1944), A Christmas Carol (1938), It’s A Wonderful Life (1946) and so many others.


6. Is there anyone in your close inner-circle who shares your passion of film?

I have a great work colleague whom I consider a close friend and future collaborator on various projects. We share a love for all things entertainment from classic film to Z-grade shlock horror.

7. If you have Twitter, have you had any meaningful exchanges with celebrities and/or people who you admire?

I have a strange love/hate relationship with Twitter. It actually makes me feel very alone and ignored! Yet when I do get notice, it’s from some very kind and wonderful people who are mainly fellow classic film fans and bloggers.

8. What is your most cherished box-set of films?

VERY hard to choose but I think it would go to the Marx Brothers Paramount movies box-set. It’s a beautifully presented set and the black-and-silver themed artwork is on point. For me, the best of the Brothers can be found in the Paramount films and the true essence of their comedy. A close second would The Thin Man boxset.


9. What is your favourite kind of food to snack on while watching movies?

Popcorn and Coke No Sugar – both the size of Mt Everest if possible.

10. Which celebrity death affected you the most?

I was greatly saddened by the death of Prince whose music I loved. I saw him on tour in Australia in 1992 but missed out the last two times. What an absolute genius! However, every time I hear of the passing of a classic film or television star, I naturally feel a sense of loss.

11. If you had the choice to travel in a time machine with a 50/50 chance of being able to come back to the present, would you decide to go?

The temptation would be terribly great, but I think I would decline. I couldn’t leave my kids! Although the chance to visit the 1930s would be fantastic.

My nominees for the Liebler Award

Tynan at Four Star Films

Zoe at Hollywood Genes

Paul at Classic Film Journal

The Brannan Sisters at Pure Entertainment Preservation Society

Heather at Meet Me At The Soda Fountain

My 11 Questions For The Nominees

  1. If you could star with a classic film actor and classic film actress, who would they be and why?
  2. Who is your favourite director?
  3. London or Paris? Why?
  4. What has been the most challenging blog post you have had to write?
  5. What is the next book you plan to read from your reading list?
  6. Describe your perfect day (within the bounds of reality).
  7. Who had the greatest influence on your developing a love for classic film?
  8. What iconic car from a classic film would you love to own?
  9. List your favourite quote from a classic film and why you love it so much.
  10. Name a classic film villain you love to hate and why.
  11. If you could possess a super power, what would it be and why?

I truly hope the nominees will accept!

Paul Batters teaches secondary school History in the Illawarra region and also lectures at the University Of Wollongong. In a previous life, he was involved in community radio and independent publications. Looking to a career in writing, Paul also has a passion for film history.