THE FLESH AND THE FIENDS

UK, 1959, 97 minutes, Black and white.
Peter Cushing, June Laverick, Donald Pleasence, George Rose.
Directed by John Gilling.

The Flesh and the Fiends is an interesting horror film featuring Peter Cushing. However, it is more than a mere horror film, it is a semi-biography of Burke and Hare who were famous in Edinburgh in the early 19th century as grave robbers. They supplied corpses to the medical practitioners of the day even though the practice of grave-robbing was against the law. There was a biographical film of Burke and Hare featuring Harry Andrews and Derrin Nesbit. The film could also be compared with Robert Wise's film of the 40s starring Boris Karloff, The Body Snatchers. Quite good horror and an interesting re-creation of a macabre aspect of the 19th century.

1. Was this a good horror film? Why? What were the best horror features in the film? The implications of the title and the tone of the title?

2. The film was based on truth. what impact does this have on an audience? How horrifying is it to realise that this was true and not fiction?

3. What was your response to bodysnatching? How repulsive was it? How necessary was it for research? Does the medical end justify this means? The types of people involved? The furtive nature of the deals?

4. How was Dr. Knox the first focus of the film? Was he a sympathetic character? Peter Cushing's personality and style? The ascetic nature of Peter Cushing? His menace and severity, seriousness? The importance of the sequences where he lectured and the response to him? His single-mindedness? His humanity towards his family, and his lack of humanity towards the corpses? The contrast between Dr. Knox and Dr. Mitchell? How was Dr. Mitchell more humane in his approach? The contrast, then, with Chris Jackson? Knox's advice to Jackson about emotions? What humanising effect did Martha have on Dr. Knox?

5. What insight into the history of medicine did this film give? The nature of research and the focus of study on man? The need of corpses for the study of anatomy? Dr. Knox's scientific, humanistic approach? His denial of the soul? And yet his decision to play God as regards lives and corpses? Response to this?

6. How repulsive were Burke and Hare? And Mrs. Burke? What kind of people were they? In the Edinburgh setting? The tavern life, their lazy life? Their greed for money, their stooping to murders? How repulsive was this? The details of the murders, especially Mary’s? The murder of Chris Jackson? How mad were they? How ugly was the filming of the sequences with Burke and Hare?

7. The importance of the story of Mary and Chris? What did it add to the atmosphere of the film? Mary and the tavern life? Her prostitution? The change in her with Chris and her inability to respond? As a plausible leading up to her death? The effect of her death on Chris? The horror of his murder?

8. Were the murders too violent for the film or did they add to the horror? The horror of the chase of Burke and Hare? The blinding of Hare? What impact did this violence have on the film and the audience?

9. Did you sympathise with the people who wanted to lynch Burke and Hare? How had they offended the atmosphere of Edinburgh? Your response to Hare's turning King's witness? The hanging of Burke and his wanting to appear properly before the public? (The betrayal of his wife?)

10. How important was the clash between Dr. Knox and the Edinburgh doctors? Were they quacks? Was he right to denounce them? Were they right to deceive him? How did the doctor persuade them not to pursue him? The importance of Knox’s encounter with the child and his rediscovery of conscience? was this convincing? Did he deserve the applause at the end?

11. How successfully did the film show the various strata of Edinburgh society Dr. Knox and the studies, society and the Edinburgh and Martha, the low life in the taverns, the mad boy, Burke and Hare etc.?

12. what was the final impact of the film? In terms of entertainment, in terms of message?