# Hell House by Richard Matheson (1971)



## AE35Unit

This is a story about an old haunted family house led by maniacal Emeric  Belasco,  who would lure people into his house and engage in orgies and  wild parties. Many died at his hand and years after Belasco's own death  his spirit infests the place. Dr Barret along with his wife, a medium  and a previous resident who survived are sent in to investigate and  'cleanse' the house once and for all...

I wasnt sure I'd like this as I'd not read this author before and I always associate him with SF (he's responsible for  *I Am Legend* as well as the excellent  B-movie from the 1950s *The Incredible Shrinking Man*)  but I can honestly say I enjoyed it! Its a typical haunted house horror  story, maybe nothing new but,  well it was written in the 70s when  Hammer House of Horror was regularly on our TV screens, and Hell House  is a prime example of that genre. 
Good creepy stuff!


----------



## j d worthington

Glad you enjoyed it. It's a good deal stronger than most such stories tended to be up to that time (that is, the material is more explicit and violent), but well done. Not surprisingly, it is lodged alongside, in many readers' minds, Shirley Jackson's *The Haunting of Hill House*, which has much the same basic situation, and the two share other interesting links as well.....


----------



## J Riff

The movie is good too.


----------



## AE35Unit

j. d. worthington said:


> Glad you enjoyed it. It's a good deal stronger than most such stories tended to be up to that time (that is, the material is more explicit and violent), but well done. Not surprisingly, it is lodged alongside, in many readers' minds, Shirley Jackson's *The Haunting of Hill House*, which has much the same basic situation, and the two share other interesting links as well.....



Someone on another forum mentioned that Matheson wrote the book as a kind of tribute to Jackson's book- he thought Hell House was a stinker!


----------



## j d worthington

AE35Unit said:


> Someone on another forum mentioned that Matheson wrote the book as a kind of tribute to Jackson's book- he thought Hell House was a stinker!


 
I've never run into any mention of that, but it's possible. It would, however, be unlike Matheson to expend the amount of time and energy necessary to write an entire novel for such a purpose. Possible but, I think, unlikely. Unless, of course, this person has something of that nature direct from the horses's mouth... which is certainly possible also. 

As for it being "a stinker"... did he specify why?

Oh, and I'll toss in my support for the film, as well. Not quite as strong as the book (it couldn't be, and be made in the period it was!), but nonetheless fairly strong stuff for the time... and a very, very good cast, with a screenplay by Matheson himself....


----------



## AE35Unit

j. d. worthington said:


> I've never run into any mention of that, but it's possible. It would, however, be unlike Matheson to expend the amount of time and energy necessary to write an entire novel for such a purpose. Possible but, I think, unlikely. Unless, of course, this person has something of that nature direct from the horses's mouth... which is certainly possible also.
> 
> As for it being "a stinker"... did he specify why?
> 
> Oh, and I'll toss in my support for the film, as well. Not quite as strong as the book (it couldn't be, and be made in the period it was!), but nonetheless fairly strong stuff for the time... and a very, very good cast, with a screenplay by Matheson himself....



Quote from a horror forum, from a member in Texas :


> _Hell House_ was an intentional tribute to Shirley Jackson's _The Haunting of Hill House_, which is a much better book in just about every way. I like Richard Matheson, but I thought _Hell House_ was awful.


----------



## j d worthington

Mmmm... no citation of a source there, so it could be from Matheson, or still simply be the reader's assumption. And I'd still like to know _why_ he felt the book to be so bad....


----------



## AE35Unit

j. d. worthington said:


> Mmmm... no citation of a source there, so it could be from Matheson, or still simply be the reader's assumption. And I'd still like to know _why_ he felt the book to be so bad....



He just didn't like it I guess. Maybe not enough blood and guts- theyre big on slasher films on there!


----------



## j d worthington

AE35Unit said:


> He just didn't like it I guess. Maybe not enough blood and guts- theyre big on slasher films on there!


 
Perhaps so, if such was his expectation (though the book was certainly brutal enough for its time); but that seems dubious given his praise of Shirley Jackson's novel, which is _certainly_ not of that nature!


----------



## AE35Unit

j. d. worthington said:


> Perhaps so, if such was his expectation (though the book was certainly brutal enough for its time); but that seems dubious given his praise of Shirley Jackson's novel, which is _certainly_ not of that nature!



I have no idea then! Just a matter of taste I suppose- Ive not read the Shirley Jackson novel myself. It might be a case of liking what he read first (Shirley Jackson), hearing that Hell House was Matheson's take on it ( true or otherwise) and not liking it by comparison!


----------



## j d worthington

Quite possible. I don't know how you would feel about Jackson's novel, but you might well enjoy it. Don't expect the same sort of thing, but I think you'll find some interesting familial relationships...

I've quoted the opening of that novel elsewhere, but just in case you've not seen one of those posts:



> No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality; even larks and katydids are supposed, by some, to dream. Hill House, not sane, stood by itself against its hills, holding darkness within; it had stood so for eighty years and might stand for eighty more. Within, walls continued upright, bricks met neatly, floors were firm, and doors were sensibly shut; silence lay steadily against the wood and stone of Hill House, and whatever walked there, walked alone.


----------



## GOLLUM

I love Jackson's Hill House and that opening to the novel is marvellous.

I have a copy of Hell House but I've never seen the film? Is the general consensus that it is worth me seeking it out?


----------



## j d worthington

Well, as I indicated above, I would certainly say "yes". It has a nearly perfect cast: Clive Revill as Dr. Barrett; Gayle Hunicutt as Mrs. Barrett; Pamela Franklin as Florence Tanner (the only bit of casting which doesn't fit physically; Ms. Franklin is a wonderful actress, and does a superb job, but "Junoesque" she is not); and Roddy McDowall as B. F. Fischer, with a very good script by Matheson himself. Very nicely directed; with excellent cinematography, a very strange and effective electronic score; and, in general, a fine film. (On McDowall as Fischer: When I first read the novel in its original hardbound edition, I kept picturing him in that role, and when I found out he had been cast in the film, I couldn't help but feel this was one of those cases where a character was written -- consciously or not -- precisely for one particular actor....)


----------



## GOLLUM

Cool. I'll see about sourcing a copy then.

Good night...


----------



## AE35Unit

Hmmm, might have to look out for the film, even tho I cant stand Roddy McDowell!! I imagine a big powerful man for Fischer!


----------



## AE35Unit

Hmmm, might have to look out for the film, even tho I cant stand Roddy McDowell!! I imagine a big powerful man for Fischer!


----------



## j d worthington

He puts in a very good performance; brings a wide range of emotions to the part, and the final confrontation would not, I think, have worked nearly as well with anyone else....


----------

