Hammer Time! Nightmare (1964)

The camera floats along a dark corridor, lit only by lamps that reveal cells set into the walls. We enter one such room and find a woman crouched in the corner. ‘You know that you’re as mad as I am!’ she bellows, as the door slams shut and the screaming begins…

So starts Nightmare, the aptly - if rather unimaginatively - named cheapie* that doled some money back into Hammer’s coffers after the mess that was The Phantom of the Opera. Along with Maniac and Paranoiac, the Jimmy Sangster scripted film was made on a limited budget, featured no ‘names’ and was shot in black and white. Nightmare didn’t last forever either, clocking in at a mere 83 minutes yet typically sparing little of its running time. On the surface is yet another attempt to rip off Psycho, to serve up some hackneyed psychological drama, whilst in reality it’s a family saga, the yarn of a troubled, related group of people, some of whom don’t let blood or morality get in the way of grasping the prized inheritance.

And of course, it’s brilliant. Nightmare works better than Paranoiac because it introduces a factor that was missing largely from the earlier picture - fear. As the title suggests, the movie is about the effect that nightmares can have. The main character is a teenager who’s worried she will turn out the same way as her murderous, deranged mother, and her dreams reflect this. Only, as she begins to see things in her waking hours as well as when she’s asleep, Janet (Jennie Linden) starts to lose all sense of reality. The lack of a good night’s slumber tells on her face; dark rings form beneath her eyes and every noise becomes a potential threat. Is her grip on sanity faltering, or is she being manipulated? Everyday people are turned into objects of suspicion, from the school governess who pries into the source of her nightmares, to the nurse who has been ‘placed’ in the house with Janet as a friend and counsellor. What’s the story with Henry Baxter (David Knight), Janet’s guardian? He laughs off her woes, only later to appear as a stabbed corpse during one of her dreams/waking nightmares. And who is the woman in white, the silent, dark haired vision who stalks the house and invades her mind?

Nightmare posterDirector Freddie Francis (also responsible for Paranoiac) serves up a disorientating treat, one in which the audience shares Janet’s confusion over what’s real. At one point, Janet spots a character staring at her from an upstairs window, but it’s someone who has recently died. And the movie’s adept wrong-footedness doesn’t end there, twists and turns keeping us on our toes until the final scene.

Little of it would work without effective cinematography, which fortunately is first rate. Nightmare’s gaudy use of light and shadow is reminiscent of Ealing’s Dead of Night, even from the opening scene during which an asylum corridor becomes something far more sinister and claustrophobic. It’s yet more effective later in the film, when another character begins to experience the ‘hauntings’ for herself. Though she’s a tougher nut than Janet, she starts to crack, an endless stream of cigarettes reflecting her feeble efforts to keep her mind off the nightmares that are all too real. With each ‘incident’ the camera angles become increasingly bizarre. During one moment, as the character walks across the room to investigate a suspiciously billowing curtain, we watch from the perspective of the ceiling, making a small action appear to occupy far more time than it really does.

Francis’s direction and Sangster’s chilling screenplay are so effective that only the actors might ruin Nightmare. By all accounts, Julie Christie was the first choice to play Janet, and Linden had to enter as a last minute replacement. Hers is a screeching performance, which might come across as irritating despite the note perfect approach she brings to the role. Looking increasingly shattered throughout her ordeal, Linden in fact turns into a fine and surprisingly realistic Janet. She’s only bettered by Moira Redmond, whose take on Grace is an even longer and harder descent into madness. Supporting work is offered by the able likes of Brenda Bruce, Irene Richmond and George A Cooper, who is perhaps better known as Mr ‘Blooming kids!’ Griffths, the caretaker from Grange Hill.

Nightmare is available on the Region One Hammer Horror Series set, which has turned out to be a superb purchase. It’s also the pick of the eight titles available on this very fine collection - high praise indeed, but deserved. Nightmare is scary, has atmosphere, and uses its black and white palette to sublime creepy effect. Also noteworthy is its sound work, which outdoes a host of modern fright flicks with its things going bump in the night somewhere off screen. It’s highly recommended.

* The film’s title is nevertheless a major improvement on what it was called during its initial UK release - Here’s the Knife, Dear: Now Use It. Thankfully this alternative moniker was dropped, presumably because it made the movie sound too much like a spoof, let alone dreadful in its own right.

5 Responses to “Hammer Time! Nightmare (1964)”

  1. desktidy Says:

    I like the film and rate it pretty similarly to ‘Paranoiac’ but I would say ‘Tastre of Fear’ is Sangster’s best version of this script (he has impressively recycled it five times that I know of).
    I’m surprised you find Nightmare the best of the bunch in Universal’s collection. For me ‘Brides of Dracula’ towers above the rest as one of Hammer’s very best films.
    It’s a great set and extremely good value for money. I don’t think it contains any complete clunkers. Even ‘The Evil of Frankenstein’ which is the weakest film in the set is an enjoyable romp and I actually quite like ‘Phantom of the Opera’.

  2. Mike Says:

    Thanks ‘desk’ - all I can add to my comments about this movie is that I was hooked from start to finish, and it scored extra marks for having a genuine sense of creepiness throughout. As mentioned above, its lighting and cinematography reminded me a lot of Dead of Night, parts of which I still see as the high point for any horror movie filmed in black and white.

    The Universal collection is bloody brilliant in general, of course. I didn’t realise that I hadn’t seen Evil of Frankenstein before watching it here, and agree its one of the weaker flicks on the set (especially as I prefer Hammer’s Frankenstein franchise to their Dracula series), and would have to say the same of Phantom of the Opera, though its musical lyrics are often unintentionally hilarious.

    Brides is fantastic, and I also really enjoyed Night Creatures and Kiss of the Vampire. That makes the three not mentioned solid three-star movies, which in total determines the set to be amazing value for money and a fine cross section of Hammer’s work for this period. Pound for pound, I se it as superior to the Ultimate Hammer Collection, which contains more clunkers (Viking Queen, Vengenace of She, etc). A mention also for the superb quality of the restorations - only Evil of Frankie had any audio concerns for me.

  3. Livius Says:

    I think I’ve said before that I’m very fond of Jimmy Sangster’s mini-Hitchhcock movies, and ‘Nightmare’ is a better example than ‘Paranoiac’. Of course, as you said, the dazzling b/w photography on the franchise set makes them seem even better. I also agree that ‘Taste/Scream of Fear’ is the best of them - but they all have something to recommend them.

    Unlike you, I’m rather fond of ‘Evil of Frankenstein’. Aside from the crap monster make-up, I think it does a good job of aping the old Universal movies of the 30s and 40s, right down to the look of the lab. The only movie in the set that didn’t really do it for me was ‘Phantom’ - but then I’ve never been a huge fan of the story in any of its versions.

  4. Michael Says:

    I thought this had a strong first half but ultimately became tedious; the final half hour was almost unbearably drawn out considering the climax was a foregone conclusion. 3/5 for me. Paranoiac was significantly superior IMO. In fact I found Nightmare to be the weakest film in the Universal Hammer collection alongside Evil of Frankenstein, though the latter, while equally silly, sustained itself better.

  5. Michael Says:

    I’ll have to watch Nightmare again to see if it improves for me. The cinematography was its primary strength IMO.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Login     Film Journal Home     Support Forums           Journal Rating: 4/5 (9)