The Tingler
The Tingler (1959), starring Vincent Price and directed by William Castle,
would be best categorized as a horror film. According to David Bordwell and Kristin
Thompson in Film Art: 8th Edition, “The horror genre is most recognizable by its
intended emotional effect on the audience. The horror film aims to shock, disgust,
repel- in short, to horrify” (Bordwell and Thompson 329). The Tingler is a film about
a man seeking the truth behind human fear and whether or not that fear can
awaken a dormant monster living within every human spine. Vincent Price’s
character, Dr. Warren Chapin, performs autopsies at the State prison and has
discovered many inmates’ spines to be broken in an unusual manner. His belief is
that there is a creature that, fed by fear, has the ability to kill a person unless they
release that fear by screaming, rendering the creature harmless.
In “An Introduction to the American Horror Film”, Robin Wood states that,
“Although so simple, the formula provides three variables: normality, the Monster,
and, crucially, the relationship between the two. The definition of normality in
horror films is in general boringly constant: the heterosexual monogamous couple,
the family, and the social institutions (police, church, armed forces) that support
and defend them. The Monster is, of course, much more protean, changing from
period to period as society’s basic fears clothe themselves in fashionable or
immediately accessible garments – rather as dreams use material from recent
memory to express conflicts or desires that may go back to early childhood” (Wood
204). Wood is saying that in horror films there is an exaggeration of both normalcy
and the monster and it accounts for a basic formula of American horror films.
In The Tingler, Dr. Chapin is married, but has no love life, appears to live
moderately, and is very average looking. His life is normal, apart from his
experiments, and would fall into a “boringly constant” category.
There is a formula to create or define American horror films, much like other
genres. And like many other genres, horror is often only examined by the moneymaking films of the genre; the well known films of Psycho, The Omen, and The
Exorcist. What about those smaller films, the B-list films that have been mass
produced over the years? There are many misconceptions of B-list films; that they
are poorly made, or that they have ridiculous monsters, and bad, unknown actors.
The derogative implications of attaching the letter B to a film seem apparent; yet
even with preconceived ideas, many people are fascinated by “awesomely bad”
horror films. Does this mean that addressing a movie as a B-list film it will be
Brimm 1
dismissed without the chance to prove itself a worthy film of the genre? Also,
because often horror films were massed produced as B-list films, are they more
disreputable than B-list films of other genres? These films should not be dismissed
so easily. The Tingler, a B-list film not without cheesiness, could easily be
depreciated, however, the film tells a clear story, has interesting mise-en-scène,
the acting is not that terrible, and there are thrilling scenes. Albeit, the monster is
about as terrifying as a stuffed lobster, the fear surrounding the monster
compensates for its innocuous appearance. To B-list a film is to deliver a death
sentence without a fair trial. B-list horror films are dealt a double blow by belonging
to a genre that can be considered ridiculous by an audience, but then completely
dismissed when B listed.
William Castle did produce many low-budget films, but he did so in style
(Brottman 3). In fact, in theatres showing The Tingler, the audience seats were
wired and timed to shock people at different intervals so as to get the audience
involved. There is even a screaming session in the film involving people in a movie
theatre, and the wired seats in the actual theatre were tripped and shocking
audience members at this point; creating screams throughout the live audience.
Mikita Brottman, in her article “Ritual, Tension, and Relief: The Terror of The
Tingler” cites Cahier du Cinema and quotes an article that says “Films like The
Tingler stand as realizations of the spectacular ‘happening-cinema’ conceived by the
Futurist movement: a system of traumatization, ‘where the spectacle unfolds not
only on the screen, but also in the room, with special effects that allowed the
audience to be played with like puppets’” (Brottman 6). Not many films go this
extra mile to entertain an audience. 3-D was a trick used in films in the 1950s;
including another film Vincent Price starred in, House of Wax, which had a scene
involving a yo-yo artist that played no important part, but his yo-yo tricks were
directed towards the camera and were used as part of the 3-D enticement of the
film. 3-D has made a major comeback recently, but there are no advertisements of
a theatre creating a setting like that of The Tingler and its shocking seats. This
trickery of wired seats may not have created the success of the film, but were an
additional delight.
In the scene when the tingler has been lost in a movie theatre, Castle chose
to make the screen completely black and rely on audio and theatre gimmicks.
William Castle was considered a gimmick master, in fact, “John Waters, himself the
proud inventor of Odorama, has referred to Castle as King of the Gimmicks,
confessing that ‘William Castle was my idol. His films made me want to make films.
Brimm 2
I’m even jealous of his work. In fact, I wish I were William Castle’” (Brottman 4).
Castle’s inventive tricks were applied to many of his low budget horror films, in my
opinion creating a genre of interactive horror films. In The Tingler Castle let the
audience, and the theatre, do all the work during the climactic scene when the
tingler was loose in the theatre shown on screen. Rather than show the horror and
remove the audience’s imagination, Castle chose to let his invention Percepto (the
electric motors attached to random seats in the theatre and controlled by the
projectionist to shock at certain points during the movie) aid the audience in their
thrills, recreating the sensation described previously in the film as the early signs of
the tingler forming in the spine. In this scene, the screen goes black and a voice is
heard (Vincent Price) telling the audience “Ladies and Gentlemen, please, do not
panic, but scream! Scream for your lives! The tingler is loose in this theatre!”, and
while the screen stays black, people are heard screaming. This is when all of the
Percepto seats were turned on, sending their occupants out of their seats
screaming and scaring not only those jolted, but the whole theatre. The audience
actually becomes a part of the film, which was unheard of during that time and
even today. After intense screaming the voice then says, “The tingler has been
paralyzed by your screams. There is no more danger. We will now resume the
showing of the movie”, then the screen returns to the actual film where no time has
passed, revealing to the audience they have been tricked by William Castle. The
only part of this scene that is cheesy would be the actual tingler and its shadow
cast on the screen before it goes to black. The creature looks like a stuffed lobster,
but that image assists in calming the audience before the major scare, similar to
other horror films that have a somewhat comedic instance before a thrill to really
emphasize the horror.
William Castle did the exact opposite of horror films at that time; he removed
the visual representation and let the audience create their own horrific mental
images while he assisted aurally and physically through the real theatre. In Genre
Criticism Robin Wood states that, “The analogy frequently invoked between films
and dreams is usually concerned with the experience of the audience. The spectator
sits in darkness, and the sort of involvement the entertainment film invites
necessitates a certain switching-off of consciousness, a losing of oneself in a
fantasy experience. But the analogy is also useful from the point of view of the
filmmakers. Dreams – the embodiment of repressed desires, tensions, fears that
our conscious mind rejects – become possible when the ‘censor’ that guards our
subconscious relaxes in sleep” (Wood 202). What Wood is saying supports Castle’s
Brimm 3
gimmicks; the audience succumbs to sleep by watching the movie and dropping
their guard. As a filmmaker, this is the opportunity to scare the audience into
consciousness, bringing them into reality which is scarier than the fantasy on
screen. Castle knew how to engage his audience and clearly made films that were
fresh and entertaining, in spite of a low budget.
Are the B-list horror films that are just as successful as big production horror
films successful because the root of the horror is the same, sexual repression?
Robin Wood argues in “An Introduction to the American Horror Film” that film is the
representation of repression and oppression present in different cultures. Wood
writes about repression and oppression of cultures and the representation of both in
film. He states, “One might say that the true subject of the horror genre is the
struggle for recognition of all that our civilization represses oroppresses: its reemergence dramatized, as in our nightmares, as an object of horror, a matter for
terror, the “happy ending” (when it exists) typically signifying the restoration of
repression” (Wood 201). As it relates to The Tingler, Wood’s article helps establish
that the monster that grows inside every human being, when fear is heightened,
represents the repression of sexual arousal in America’s culture. If that arousal, or
monster, were to “get out” society would freak out, just as is portrayed in the scene
in the movie theatre when people are screaming in the dark. Even in the movie
taking drugs and killing are not depicted nearly as important as the monster and
subduing it. Taking Wood's article into consideration, this suggests that sexual
arousal was so taboo in America in the 1950s that suppressing that arousal took
priority over murder.
In comparison, were the experimental entertainment tactics of director
William Castle what really helped his B-list horror films succeed? Mikita Brottman’s
“Ritual, Tension, and Relief: The Terror of The Tingler” discusses the movie, the
director, the understanding of animal body doubles, and film and faeces. Brottman
writes, “Most fans of exploitation cinema appreciate and relish Castle’s work as
gleeful fairground bravado, relying on a surface facetiousness and tongue-in-cheek
aplomb enlivened by moments of sudden, shrill shock” (Brottman 6). Most of the
people attending a Castle film, or most horror films of the 50s and 60s, knew that
the B-list films were going to be cheesy and unrealistic, but they still bought
tickets. Brottman’s reference of “happening-cinema” which leaves the “audience to
be played with like puppets” defines what Castle’s films aimed to do, play tricks on
the audience to entertain. (6). Castle’s films were a total package, not only was the
audience entertained with what was on the screen, but also through Percepto as
Brimm 4
in The Tingler, Illusion-O (a ghost viewer) in 13 Ghosts, and Emergo (illuminated
plastic skeletons on a pulley system) as in House on Haunted Hill. To say the least,
Castle’s films were inventive.
B-list horror films should not be judged by their prefixed grade. Even though
B-list films received smaller budgets and often consisted of lesser known cast and
crews, audiences still sought out these films for their entertainment. And more
often than not, these films were selling tickets in groups not single tickets; large
groups were seeing these films so as to enjoy the cheap tricks and laugh at or with
each other. William Castle was an innovator, master of gimmicks, and a good
filmmaker. Through his films he sought to shock his audience and entertain them to
the best of his abilities. Audiences knew an experience was guaranteed at a Castle
film. Filmmakers and audiences are loyal to the other as long as that loyalty is
returned. Audiences would continue to attend Castle’s films as long as his films
would deliver fun and fright, and vice versa.
The Tingler is an example of a film that consists of gimmicks while still
exhibiting sexual repression by way of a monster, which is often found in horror
films. While the monster, or sexual repression, is one reason for seeing the film.
However, audiences did not buy tickets to horror films solely to see new monsters;
instead they bought tickets like they would for a school dance or a social gathering,
as a social experience. Horror films in theatres and drive-ins gave young adult
audiences the opportunity for dates, fun group outings, and more importantly a
chance to laugh at something or someone who is supposed to be terrifying, unlike
the true terrors in real life. Movies are the epitome of escape; nothing is impossible
in film. Horror films, B-list or not, give their viewers the opportunity to explore,
without consequence, sexual arousal, murder, and drugs. Horror films are the
Pandora’s box of films, but unlike in Greek mythology, the box is closed at the end
of the reel.
Brimm 5
Works cited:
Bordwell, David, and Kristin Thompson. Film Art. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill,
2008.
Brottman, Mikita. “Ritual, Tension, and Relief: The Terror of ‘The Tingler’.” Film
Quarterly 50 (1997) : 2-10.
Wood, Robin. “An Introduction to the American Horror Film.” Movies and Methods.
Ed. Bill Nichols. Vol. 2. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California
Press, 1985. 195-220.
Brimm 6