The Dark Angel (1989): A Gothic Nightmare Worth Revisiting

Uncle Silas is one of author’s Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu’s best, and best loved novels. It’s a Gothic nightmare filled with memorable, broadly drawn characters, an immersive sense of atmosphere, and a command of language and pacing that is nothing short of masterly.

Although Le Fanu was best known for his ghost stories, Uncle Silas hasn’t a single element of the supernatural or the uncanny. Instead, Le Fanu weaves a tale of greed, corruption, illusion, and tremendous evil preying on the innocent. The book tells the tale of an adolescent girl named Maud, an heiress living with her reclusive father, in their formidable mansion. After her father's sudden death, she becomes the ward of her uncle Silas, a once infamous gambler, and who now claims to be a devout Christian, living a quiet, secluded life in his mansion, Bartram-Haugh. But soon after moving in with him, Maud begins to sense that something is amiss, with her uncle Silas behaving strangely, even sinisterly, while Bartram-Haugh, with its history of murder, seems to be haunted by an air of menace and evil.

The novel has been adapted to the big and small screens many a time, but one of the most effective, and provocative versions, is The Dark Angel, a mini-series which aired on the BBC in the winter of 1989.

This version is almost forgotten now, but upon release, it was quite a sensation, and later, when it came out on VHS, it turned into a cult classic. And for good reason.

The Dark Angel, takes Le Fanu’s slow-burn novel, and turns it into a hallucinatory, intense Gothic thriller, or as the promotional material calls the series, "the archetypal Gothic thriller."

Veteran TV director Peter Hammond, and writer Don MacPherson, attack the material with manic energy, leaving no opportunity to explore the darkest and seediest aspects of the original novel, sometimes stylishly, sometimes with what borders on bad taste. But throughout the three episodes that make up the series, there is never a dull moment, or an uncaptivating scene.

Maud is played with earnest innocence by Beatie Edney, and like all the other characters from the novel, is more or less an exaggerated version of the original character.

Peter O’Toole, as Uncle Silas, delivers one of his typically uneven performances from the 1980s, oscillating between brooding charisma, and annoying hamminess. But in his quieter moments, O’Toole is a scary, unforgettable Silas, a vicious, calculating scoundrel, masquerading as a tortured Byronic figure.

But the real star of this adaptation is Jane Lapotaire as Madame de la Rougierre, Silas’s emissary and dark accomplice. Lapotaire delivers a performance so sinister, so mesmerizing, that it has to be seen to be believed. A performance that is kinetic, exaggerated, and grotesque, yet never unbelievable or risible. It is a near magnificent acting feat, and showcases the breadth of talent of Lapotaire, one of the most underrated actors to come out of Britain. Lapotaire takes a character that was merely intriguing in the novel, and transforms her into a force of cruel nature, a sadistic villain who nonetheless manages to be entrancing and even sympathetic.

And although director Peter Hammond’s excesses, and the series’ overwrought tone threaten to overwhelm the viewer at any moment, by the end of the three hour tale, one is left with a sense of a dark journey worth taking, through a haunted, grotesque, and occasionally beautiful nightmare.

Text © Ahmed Khalifa.

Video Version:

Book Vs. Movie: PHANTOMS

Phantoms (1998) is sort of an oddity. It’s got a good cast, good production values, and atmosphere to spare. But, for some reason, it never quite gets it right.

Let’s backtrack a bit and explain how this movie came to be.

After his book Whispers hit it big in 1980, Dean Koontz, now considered one of the world’s best-selling authors, was asked to write another best-seller. His publisher advised that his next book should be a horror novel since they were all the rage at the time (thanks to Stephen King). Koontz, who doesn’t consider himself a “horror writer” per se, reluctantly agreed, mostly due to financial reasons. The result was Phantoms, published in 1983. It was a hell of a book. Moody, intelligent, with well-drawn characters, and Satan as the villain. The novel became a huge bestseller when it came out in paperback.

Fast forward 15 years later, and Dimension Studios (the company behind the Scream, Hellraiser, and Children of The Corn franchises) decided to turn Phantoms into a movie. The result was Phantoms (1998), starring Joanna Going, Ben Affleck, Rose McGowan, and Peter O'Toole.

Phantoms (1998), more or less, retains the basic story of its source material, with a few subtractions and a couple of major changes. The concept remains the same: the entire population of a small town suddenly disappears into thin air. Menacing shadow creatures begin to emerge out of the dark, toying with the handful of people who stumble upon the mystery. An expert on mass disappearances is called in, and he claims that the entity behind the mayhem is an ancient, seemingly omnipotent being, that may be Satan himself.

What is different about the movie version is that the story has been streamlined (or dumbed down), with the rich scientific background found in the novel basically removed. As for the characters, again, they have been streamlined and simplified, losing most of their depth. The one pleasant surprise in this version is Dr. Timothy Flyte, a character that was basically fodder for the creature in the book. In the movie, and in the hands of Peter O’Toole, the character of Dr. Flyte saves the film, as O’Toole’s portrayal is delivered with verve and a wry sense of humor, which turns the character into some of sort of a modern Van Helsing with a worldly bent.

The script, by Koontz, also features some witty moments, as in the 15 years since the original book was published, Koontz had matured as a writer, and the screenplay feels more like one of his novels published in the late nineties: slick, laced with humor, and designed to thrill.

But despite the endearing performances, the eerie atmosphere (thanks to director Joe Chapelle's stylish handling of the material), and the satisfying ending (which, I might add, is superior to the ending featured in the original novel), the film has one too many cringe-worthy moments, ultimately preventing it from rising above its B-movie trappings.

So Phantoms (1998) is what it is: an entertaining, stylish b-movie, with a few things to offer. But after watching the movie version, do yourself a favor and pick up a copy of the original novel. You won’t be disappointed.

Text © Ahmed Khalifa. 2014- 2016.

Watch the extended video version of this post:

* This article originally appeared on Bitlanders.*