WICKED WICKED

US, 9173, 95 minutes, Colour.
David Bailey, Tiffany Bolling, Randolph Roberts, Scott Brady, Edd Byrnes, Diane Mc Bain, Madeline Sherwood, Arthur O’ Connell.
Directed by Richard L. Bare.

Wicked Wicked is a conventional criminal thriller. What makes it different is that it has a gimmick. It was called Duo Vision. However, it is really a split-screen technique – with the audience able to see two images simultaneously (the film was directed by Richard L. Bare who from 1942 to 1956 made fifty short film novelties: So You Want … He then directed for television. He made very few feature films for the cinema but they include Flaxy Martin in 1949 and Wicked Wicked in the 70s.

1. Was this an effective murder thriller? Why?

2. What was the effect of Duo Vision? Did it add to the film? or did it distract and irritate?

3. How interesting was the film because of the split-screen and the possibility of seeing two differing aspects of the plot at once? Did it add dramatically to the film, in suspense?

4. Did it offer chances of seeing truth and falsity, of seeing ironic contents in reality?

5. How well established was the parallel between the film and The Phantom of the Opera?

6. Did you enjoy the organist playing the original accompanying score for the 1924 version of this film? What did it add to the film?

7. Were the situations much the same as for any similar thriller? How? The nature and construction of the hotel, the people, the detective, the celebrities, the normal human interest routine of a hotel?

8. How interesting was Mrs Karadyne as a character - in herself (her version of her life and what the split-screen showed), in relationship to Jason, her trust of him, her murder?

9. How suspenseful was the film - the first murder, the plans, the mistakes, the embalmed gallery, the finale? Why?

10. How well established was Jason as a character and the reason for his murdering - his home background adoption punishments? Were the flashbacks well handled?

11. Were the hero and heroine and their marriage problems interesting?

12. Were the people and situations of the film sufficiently real and worth discussing? Why?