Railway Terrors....

 

Horror Express (1972)

I don't recall seeing this film when I was young, but it is exactly the sort of movie I would have sought out on TV. Horror Express is a lot of fun in a horror movie sort of way. And how can you not love this film? It has Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing, but it has an additional bonus of a fantastically overacting Telly Savalas. The story is a bit inspired by John W Campbell's 'Who Goes There?' which inspired both The Thing From Another World in 1951, and John Carpenter's The Thing in 1982, and the more poorly received prequel/remake also called The Thing in 2011. Its a bit inspired by Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express. 

The basics of the story are, that, in 1906, Christopher Lee's character of Professor Sir Alexander Saxton has discovered a fossil 'missing link'' in a cave in Manchuria China, and he boxes it up to take back to London with him. In order to get back, he needs to board the Trans-Siberian Railroad back to Moscow (and presumably from there to London.) Lee encounters Peter Cushing's Dr. Wells at the station as well, which sets up a bit of a friendly rivalry between them. 

Over the course of the film, it becomes clear that the central protagonist is Lee, and Cushing, while given a number of amusing lines, is clearly a supporting character, and given only a few things to do. There is a reason for this, which is part of a touching behind the scenes story. 

Cushing had lost his wife some months before this film started filming. When he arrived in Spain for the film, he immediately told the producer he didn't feel up to performing, and was considering dropping out of the project. Lee actually called him up, and spoke to him kindly, and reminded him of all the fun they had on previous film shoots. He convinced Cushing to continue with the film... but it does seem that they understood and gave Cushing 'light duty' in the movie. His character, Dr Wells, is clearly as intelligent as Lee's Saxton, but is somewhat more underhanded than Saxton. The initial scene between the two of them sets up their differences. When the ticket agent refuses to give them berths on the train, Cushing merely turns on the charm and offers up a considerable bribe to the agent to secure his tickets. Lee looks on this somewhat disparagingly, and then goes his own route, which is pushing the ticket agents things off his desk and trying to intimidate him.... which ends up being backed up by local soldiers presenting themselves to him "to assist him in any way he needs." Wells is the slightly lazy, slightly underhanded sort, Saxton is the man of action. 

I have seen this film a number of times, but this viewing was on a remastered version making it the clearest version I have yet seen. And this viewing, I noticed something new. The story is tightly constructed, and I was amazed at the way they played with the side characters. No part is wasted, no part is a throwaway. Everyone introduced serves a purpose. The conductor. The Inspector. The Count and Countess. The Monk. The Engineer. The American Woman. The bacteriologist. The spy. The thief. The Baggage Clerk. ALL of them fill a role in the actual story, and not just window-dressing. 

The monster kills the thief and learns how to open locks. It kills the baggage man and learns the layout of the train. It kills the spy and learns about the experimental steel. It kills the engineer to learn about the technological capabilities of the human race. Each becomes a logical step. The bacteriologist is killed to reveal the witnesses to the images in the creature's eye. The random American woman at first is a dinner companion of the engineer, and then later is the witness to the engineer's death, and then finally become the woman who attracts the lascivious attentions of Telly Savalas's Captain Kazan. 

Maybe I'm used to other films of the era, which tend to use bit parts more cavalierly. Often, in say, Hammer films, the minor roles are there basically to react to the story. Michael Ripper's characters are there to tell you what you already know... that the creepy fellow that moved into the house is a foreigner who imports Egyptian antiques, or the the villagers never visit Dracula's castle, or that its foolish to go outside at night. There may be extras who are there for Dracula to kill in order to show how dangerous he is, or random villagers to cower in fear or act suspicious of whatever Baron Frankenstein is up to,,, but they never really have an impact of the story. At least, not in the way that they do here. Every one person who has a line of dialogue in Horror Express interacts organically with the story. They could easily have switched the American woman out and had three separate women in all those scenes, and in other films, they very much might have done that. This 'economy of supporting characters' works well with a scenario set on a train, where you SHOULD be limited in the number of available people.

The movie also plays with ideas of faith vs science, but in fairness, it never really gives faith a fair shake. The monk SHOULD represent Faith, but instead, very quickly flips from faith in God to faith what he perceives as the Devil. He is in the employ of the Count and Countess, who don't seem to value his input very much, and who delight in tormenting him by deliberately IGNORING his advice. The Countess even playfully asks not only her husband but the Monk which dress she should wear to impress Saxton (and it seems implied that she is wearing it in an attempt to seduce him to a degree... the husband is amused by this, and seems to treat it as a game... the monk is angered and horrified.) Later however, The Countess herself echoes a sentiment of faith when Saxton mentions Evolution, and she says "I've heard of evolution... it is immoral!" however, this is brushed aside easily by Saxton who just responds with "It is a fact, and facts are neither moral or immoral." There is a lot of this sort of dismissal that goes on in this film... later when the monk offers himself up to the Creature, who has thus far only been assimilating people useful to him, the creature itself dismisses him by saying essentially "You have nothing of value in your head, why would I want you?" 

The film is not without its problems and plot holes. How, for example, are people in the train sending messages outside the train about whats happening? Why does Moscow get involved and order the train derailed? (Which, in itself is an error, since the Capitol of Russia in 1906 was St Petersburg.) Why, when the creature transfers its mind into Inspector Mirov, does he acquire the hand of the creature as well? Why is Telly Savalas chewing the scenery like it is made of candy? Who cares.. its a tremendously fun ride.