PETER CUSHING: SURPRISE 80TH BIRTHDAY PARTY IMAGES.

PETER CUSHING'S 80TH BIRTHDAY ON 26TH MAY 1993 WAS CELEBRATED BY A MAGNIFICENT SURPRISE BIRTHDAY PARTY. FRIENDS ATTENDING INCLUDED DON HENDERSON, PAUL EDDINGTON, MICHAEL GOUGH, TIMOTHY WEST, ERNIE WISE, HIS LONG TIME FRIEND PETER GRAY, MICHAEL AND ANN REDINGTON AND MANY MORE. 

HERE WE PRESENT SOME IMAGES FROM A VERY HAPPY AND SPECIAL DAY:

  

 Michael Gough worked with Peter in Hammer Films 58 DRACULA as Arthur Holmwood. He is one of the first to arrive at the secret venue.

Paul Eddington, best known to Hammer fans for his role as Richard Eaton in 'The Devil Rides Out' and the highly BBC television series 'Yes, Minister', sneaks in the back door.

  As the last of the guests are slipping into the living room, Peter arrives with his secretary Joyce Broughton, who unknown to Peter has arranged the secret party. Peter is told to go into the living room, were someone wants to wish him a 'Happy Birthday'

Sheepishly, Peter peeps around the doorway....

...where everyone surprises him by bursting into song, singing 'Happy Birthday To You'....

Peter is delighted and very surprised and joins in with the singing.

The singing and cheering ends with 'Three Cheers for Peter', as Peter recovers from the shock!

One by one, Peter greets his guest, with hugs and handshakes.

  Peter embraces actress Rebecca Lacey, daughter of Ronald Lacey. Someone we suspect Peter has known since she was a child.

Bearing gifts and a Birthday Card...Ernie Wise. One half of the celebrated comedy duo 'Morecambe and Wise'. Peter appeared on their variety television show, a total of six times....asking for his money...!

Another old friend, actor Timothy West.

Fellow actor, Don Henderson who worked with Peter as General Taggi aboard the Death Star in  'Star Wars' and played Peter's 'son in the attic' in Tyburn Films 'The Ghoul' in 1975. With him his wife, actress Shirley Stelfox. Shirley appeared with Peter back in 1967, when she played 'Girl at the Party' in 'Corruption'!

Another chorus of 'Happy Birthday'....

Peter puts on his reading glasses to inspect his Birthday Cake, a one-off creation, decorated with motifs reflecting Peter's life and career.

Finally, as a gesture of thanks and appreciation......

Peter stands to attention...and salutes everyone for a cake and a party very well done, indeed!

Peter poses for the press. Raising a thankful glass in appreciation for a wonderful surprise party and a 'Very Happy 80th Birthday'!

PETER CUSHING: PRESS AD AND PAPER BACK TIE IN 'THE FLESH AND THE FIENDS'

PAPER BACK TIE AND PRES AD FOR BODY SNATCHERS CHILLER 'FLESH AND THE FIENDS' TRIAD PRODUCTIONS 1959 DIRECTED BY JOHN GILLING

'HEAR NOW, THE LEGEND OF THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES' PETER CUSHING, ANDRE MORELL : SHERLOCK HOLMES : HAMMER FILMS GALLERY AND REVIEW

Considering that I like the character of Sherlock Holmes so much, it may come as some surprise that I’ve never read a word of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s original stories. My first, and most extensive, contact with Sherlock Holmes comes from the films starring Basil Rathbone as the world’s greatest detective and Nigel Bruce as Dr. Watson. I’m aware that the performances these two gave, and the stories they were involved in, varied (sometimes greatly) from the source material, but I like them all the same.

Because I’m so familiar with the Basil Rathbone versions, it’s always interesting when I get to see another actor’s take on Holmes and another set of filmmakers’ approach to the same basic material. Consequently, when the Hammer Films version of The Hound of the Baskervilles aired on MGM HD — an almost, but not quite, variation on Turner Classic Movies — I jumped at the chance. I happen to have a fondness for Hammer productions, so this was a two-fer.

Hammer is known primarily for its horror output (all those Dracula movies foremost among them), so The Hound of the Baskervilles is something different. It still has a quasi-Gothic feel to it — it takes place primarily in a manor house on a moor, after all — so it’s not as divergent from Hammer’s usual product as all that, but it lacks any supernatural elements and is, basically, a straight-up Sherlock Holmes movie with a few Hammer touches.

The Hound of the Baskervilles has been made into a movie 24 times, so I’m going to lay odds you’ve seen at least one version at some time in your life. Accuracy to the source material varies, I’m sure, so arguments can be made about which is more faithful, but for me these kinds of things boil down to who’s playing Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. I’ve already told you that I favor Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, but in this film we have Peter Cushing and André Morell.

First a quick word about Peter Cushing. I have seen him in other things, most notably as various Van Helsings and Frankensteins in Hammer Films’ other type of movies. Despite all this, the very first thing I think of when I see Peter Cushing is Star Wars. I know it’s unfair to boil an actor down to a single role like that, and it’s equally unfair to Alec Guinness, who likewise had a long and varied career, but Peter Cushing equals Grand Moff Tarkin in my mind. As a result, he had a tough row to hoe when it came to winning me over as Holmes. It may surprise you that it didn’t take long.

Peter Cushing makes a really excellent Sherlock Holmes, and he went on to play the character many times afterward, so I’m not the only one who thought so. He has the almost sneering air of superiority about him that Basil Rathbone did so well, while remaining just likable enough in his brilliance that we can still root for him as the hero. Equally important, André Morell acquits himself quite well as Dr. Watson, something that’s absolutely essential in The Hound of the Baskervilles because Holmes is offscreen for fully one half of the picture.

Morell’s depiction of Watson is completely absent the lovable buffoonery that marks Nigel Bruce’s portrayals of the character and is more in line with (as I understand) his literary roots. Let us not forget that Watson is a decorated war veteran and, while he may not be as gifted intellectually as Holmes, is a medical doctor and partner to the detective. In the whole of this The Hound of the Baskervilles he does precisely one silly thing, which serves as foreshadowing for the demise of one of the other characters.

Story-wise there are differences between this film and the other with which I’m familiar. I consider these the Hammer touches. For example: the Baskerville family apparently suffers under a curse brought upon them by the excesses of an ancestor. In The Hound of the Baskervilles (1939), this information in shared with the audience via good, old-fashioned exposition. In this The Hound of the Baskervilles, we get a prologue set well into the past, where Sir Hugo Baskerville holds a wild party in which murder and rape are on the menu. This is the kind of thing that set Hammer Films apart from, say, Universal’s horror output: the willingness to push the envelope and even feature some (brilliantly colored) blood.

This Hound turns a supporting character into a sultry Spanish temptress, the better to feature her exposed legs and bare feet and bosom to the audience for their titillation, no pun intended. Another supporting character has a grotesque webbed hand. I’m not saying the old Rathbone pictures didn’t have good-looking women in them, or characters with weird traits, but they weren’t quite so in-your-face as these examples are. The difference between making movies in the ’30s versus the ’50s, I expect.

There’s a nice bit of cultural shorthand in The Hound of the Baskervilles that is likewise appropriate to a Hammer film. Christopher Lee — looking tanned, handsome and very aristocratic — plays Sir Henry Baskerville, the latest heir to the Baskerville manor and fortune. While he’s unfailingly polite and gentlemanly, he finds himself nearly out of control with sexual desire when it comes to the aforementioned Spanish temptress, the daughter of one of his neighbors. He presses his sexual attraction on her without an ounce of shame, calling back to a time when the aristocracy were essentially masters of all they surveyed, including the “little people.”

With some exceptions, the mystery plays out pretty much the same as it does in the Rathbone version. I won’t spoil you with the solution to the curse, even though you’ve had over 100 years to read it (I still haven’t), but I will say that the Hammer Films approach to the climax is more violent and, in its way, mean-spirited than the way they handled things in 1939. I’m not saying this is necessarily worse, only that it’s different.

You should check out The Hound of the Baskervilles for a few reasons, including a rare chance to see Christopher Lee playing a good-guy role, and Peter Cushing essaying Sherlock Holmes. The stage-bound, colorful images are an added treat, being as much a Hammer signature as the heaving breasts and blood.

Maybe I’ll actually read the novel now.

REVIEW: Sam Hawken
IMAGES: Marcus Brooks

COMING SOON!

COMING SOON: HEAR FROM THE WOMAN WHO MADE THE HOUNDS MASK ...MARGARET ROBINSON, WIFE OF HAMMER FILMS PRODUCTION DESIGNER, BERNARD ROBINSON, IN A 1980 INTERVIEW ON THE BLACKBOXCLUB.COM PODCAST SOON!

PETER CUSHING: HAMMER FRANKENSTEIN FRIDAYS 'THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN' VINTAGE PRESS CUTTING

PETER CUSHING AND THE POWER OF GOODNESS. PT ONE AND PT TWO

PETER CUSHING: THE FLESH AND THE FIENDS: LOBBY CARDS AND REVIEW

One of the forgotten classics of British cinema, The Flesh and The Fiends (1959) is a blackly comic, almost disturbingly vicious black-and-white horror thriller. Telling the true story of Edinburgh grave robbers Burke and Hare and their dealings with the eminent anatomist Dr Robert Knox, the film bears a superficial resemblance to Terence Fisher's first two movies in the Hammer Frankenstein series (1957, 1958), but makes for a far more cynical, realistic, and uncomfortable viewing experience.

On the back of his recent Hammer hits, Peter Cushing was cast as the amoral Dr Knox in this film, and plays the character with the same arrogance he brought to his Baron Frankenstein. However, despite his top billing, Cushing is by no means required to carry The Flesh and The Fiends, and is instead merely one of an ensemble of actors who deliver almost universally fine performances. Most notable are George Rose and Donald Pleasence, who are both hilarious and chilling as the feckless body snatchers. Pleasence is particularly striking as the selfish, cowardly sociopath Hare, his shabby appearance, evil leer, and sudden lapses into excitable anger and panic being a world away from the controlled stillness of his more famous villains in the likes of You Only Live Twice. Billie Whitelaw is also extraordinarily effective (and extraordinarily sexy) as a hard-faced prostitute who falls victim to the murderous duo.

Produced by the team of Robert S. Baker and Monty Berman shortly after they had a moderate hit with their unremarkable Jack The Ripper (1959), the most impressive thing about The Flesh and The Fiends is the sheer scale of the production, which runs to some truly enormous interior and exterior sets and seemingly hundreds of extras for the crowd scenes (of which there are quite a few). In this regard, the film is a world away from the flamboyant and colourful, yet claustrophobically small-scale action of most Hammer horror films; in terms of scale, The Flesh and The Fiends is more reminiscent of historical epics such as David Lean's films of Dickens.

After a decade of making unremarkable (and mostly low-budget) thrillers, director John Gilling got his first horror movie gig with this movie, and rarely made films outside the genre thereafter; most of his later career was spent working in television. The Flesh and The Fiends is easily Gilling's best film, and certainly does not deserve its relative obscurity, particularly in its native country.

This Region 1 DVD of The Flesh and The Fiends is a good example of how the format can be used to make the most of films that exist in several different versions, such as when older films have been cut to ribbons (for a variety of reasons) over the years. Included here are both the original British release print of the film, and the more explicit `Continental' version, featuring slightly more violence, and even topless shots of some very game female extras in the brothel scenes (and maybe I'm overly prudish, but for me there's something not quite right about nude scenes in black-and-white films; the two things just don't go together somehow).

As well as the two complete versions of the film, the DVD also features the opening credits sequence of an abridged version called simply Mania, and a trailer for the movie, advertising it under the all-purpose title The Fiendish Ghouls; this DVD really does put to shame the bare bones releases of Hammer movies from the likes of Warner Bros. About the only thing missing is a commentary, but as Gilling, Cushing, Pleasence, and Rose are all (sadly) long gone, no obvious candidates for such an effort present themselves anyway.

2019 UPDATE: SINCE THE POSTING OF THIS FEATURE, we have posted this NEWS of a long awaited NEW BLU RAY release of 'FLESH AND THE FIENDS' at this website and the FACEBOOK PCASUK FAN PAGE :We will of course, be posting reviews and updates as soon as the release in on its way!

NEWS: Great news another Cushing classic coming to blu-ray The Flesh and The Fiends coming from Kino. More details as we learn them. Coming in 2020!
Brand New 2K Masters! Two Cuts!
The Flesh and the Fiends (1960)
aka Mania aka The Fiendish Ghouls
aka Psycho Killers
 

Starring Peter Cushing, Donald Pleasence, June Laverick, Billie Whitelaw, George Rose, Renee Houston and Dermot Walsh – Shot by Monty Berman (Jack the Ripper, The Crawling Eye) – Music by Stanley Black (War-Gods of the Deep, Valentino) – Co-written by Leon Griffiths (The Grissom Gang, The Squeeze) – Co-written and Directed by John Gilling (The Reptile, The Plague of the Zombies).

REVIEW: Matthew Mercy
IMAGES: Marcus Brooks


Buy here:
http://www.amazon.com/Flesh-Fiends-Peter-Cushing/dp/tags-on-product/B00005KHJZ

VINCENT PRICE AND PETER CUSHING: 'MADHOUSE' VINTAGE MAGAZINE FEATURE

PETER CUSHING: 'THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN' PETER BEHAVING BADLY!

Last night I watched The Curse of Frankenstein (1957) for the first time. Those of you who are Hammer enthusiasts might be surprised at that. But I am sure many of you agree, experiencing one performance on the part of the great Peter Cushing is enough to make one a fan. So even though I have been and enthusiastic fan of Cushing for many, many years I have only just in the last week begun to explore the Hammer Horror part of his career.

In addition to Curse, I have also seen Dracula A.D. 1972 (1972) and The Evil of Frankenstein (1964), all within the last few days. The Hammer films have always been described to me as low budget but I have really found them to be enjoyable. Cushing’s performances in these films are every bit as formidable as any. In every interview I have seen in which Cushing is asked about these films, the actor has been adamant that he considered Hammer films to be a serious endeavor.

This attitude is evident in each of the Hammer films I have seen and I would suggest might even be the reason for the enduring success of the films. Such a performance can raise the tone of a film, thus counteracting the effect that low budgets can sometimes have on a genre such as horror which relies on special effects. In Curse Cushing plays one of the sociopathic characters that he was so very good at creating. The performance is one of his best.

Notwithstanding his considerable talent as an actor, I marvel at his ability to create these deeply evil characters, such as Dr. Frankenstein when the man himself was, by all reports, so loving and caring, not capable of such cruelty. And yet his performance in Curse left me uncomfortable. I have seen Cushing play villains before, first his performance as Grand Moff Tarkin in Star Wars (1977) when I was just five years old, but the particular performance in Curse was so good it really unsettled me. Which is exactly what you want from a performance in a horror film.

This discomfort I felt, which made the film far more effective than any special effects could ever do, renewed my sense of wonder, as a film director, at how Cushing could create these evil men. I often assign the Star Wars performance to actors when I need them to understand how to play evil but until just a few days ago, I still had not fully realized why Cushing was so good at this.

One aspect I ask my actors to pay special attention to is that Cushing never over plays evil. He creates quite a bit of emotion and then covers it with his trademark ‘gentle man of horror’ demeanor. This disarms the observer and leaves us more vulnerable to the performance. He used more of this shield in his Star Wars performance, likely because the character was military but in The Curse of Frankenstein, though he used a very similar technique, more emotion came through. Just as much as was necessary to create the enthusiastic madman he was playing.

At times this character openly enjoyed his own evilness. For instance in a scene where a maid confronts Frankenstein and threatens to call authorities on him. Cushing leans in with a wicked smile showing the mad doctor to become almost aroused by the challenge of someone attempting to stand up to his controlling tactics, and one can see disappointment on his face as she backs down. This is cat and mouse at it’s best. Still one can hardly watch this without disbelieving that someone can be so evil and still disarm. I can’t ask Cushing how he achieved this but I do believe I have gotten and answer to this question from the man himself.

Just a few days ago, I stumbled on an interview of Cushing that took place in the 80‘s. It is of poor quality having been recorded on home video equipment but in it Cushing is his usual, unusually open and trusting self and among other things shares with the viewer that his favorite actor was Humphrey Bogart. He said that no matter how evil a character he played, that ‘Bogart could do no wrong.’ Cushing’s explanation of why he reacted to Bogart this way finally gave me insight into his own ability to disturb and disarm at the very same time.

Cushing explained that a little bit of the actor shows through in every performance. So there it is. The evil we see in Dr. Frankenstein, and Grand Moff Takrin is created by the professional, the charm came from the man. As a director I am at the same time thrilled and disappointed at this discovery. Thrilled that I finally understand a little bit of where the greatness comes from, and disappointed that only part of what goes into it can be taught.

There are many great actors capable of learning to, at least approach, if not reach the greatness of Cushing’s ability to create powerful characters, but I fear that it might be impossible to find someone who carries the same delightful characteristics that Peter Cushing possessed naturally, the very characteristics that complete the equation.

As an example of this multidimensional aspect of Cushing’s Dr. Frankenstein, I refer the viewer to a scene in The Curse of Frankenstein (1957) where Frankenstein is interrupted whilst preparing food for his monster. In the quantitatively small portion of the scene before his attention is taken by a knock at the door, Frankenstein carefully tastes the monster’s food and not satisfied, adds salt to the food. Here we have a man that is pure evil and yet he cares to properly season the food of the creature he has been toying with and using for the duration of the film.

That is pure Peter. I am convinced of it. Cushing was known for involving himself in many aspects of the films he participated in and without clear evidence to the contrary, I have to believe that Frankenstein’s loving food preparation for the monster he abused was the actor’s idea. Once I understood this, I began to see more clearly just where the gentleness of the man leaked into his formidable characters. There is a further example in Curse where he attempts to protect the monster from a gun shot and the now iconic dialogue in Star Wars where Tarkin emphasizes how hard it was to order the death of Princess Lea.

Yes, I could feel sorry for myself that I am too young to have ever worked with Peter Cushing but I have to count myself lucky that I at least came after him and that he was a film actor thus leaving countless hours of recorded greatness. Luckier still that I am able to share my thoughts with others who love his work.

REVIEW: Anne LaBarbera
IMAGES: Marcus Brooks