Roger Corman's Fancifully Macabre Shakespeare/Poe Amalgam Known as The Tower of London

The following is my contribution to Forgotten Classics of Yesteryear's Roger Corman Blogathon.  There may be spoilers ahead, for those who care about such things.

When one thinks Roger Corman one thinks invariably about the hundreds of cheaply-manufactured B-movies the man directed and produced.  Sure, he is responsible for much of the transformation from the old studio era Hollywood into the more director-driven Hollywood of the seventies and early eighties (before it was sadly killed off by the age of the blockbuster!) and for giving first breaks to such future directorial luminaries as Coppola, Scorsese and Bogdanovich - and should be applauded for such - but still, when the name Roger Corman comes up (for those who have even heard of the man - and sadly there are many who have not) the visions of sea monsters and deformed ghouls and insectoid women spring immediately to mind.

Is this fair?  Is it accurate?  Is it inevitable?  One can probably answer yes on all three counts, but by no means should this be looked upon as something to be ashamed of.  Even being the film snob I most likely am (at least toward some things) I have had numerous hours of fun watching some really hokey B-movies.  From those early Warners gangster movies to the tentacle-writhing works of the infamous Ed Wood to the macabre messes of Corman's oeuvre to the dark and sinister films of Bava and the Giallo movement of the seventies to the Grindhouse so loved by one of my own idols Quentin Tarantino.  Perhaps these films will never make any respectable Top 10 Lists (then again, perhaps some will) but many of them are great fun indeed.

The funny, and quite ironic thing about Corman's 1962 film Tower of London is, even though it is assuredly of B-movie stock, it is a very well made film indeed.  Being a remake of the Rowland V. Lee directed 1939 film of the same name which starred Basil Rathbone and Boris Karloff (and of which Corman has usurped footage of to add to his film's final battle scenes), Corman's updated version leans, of course, more heavily on the macabre parts of the story.  The film stars the always enjoyable, and always giddily chilling Vincent Price as the evil-minded Richard, Duke of Glouchester and eventual King Richard III.  This is an inspired bit of casting due to the fact that Price had a supporting role in the original 1939 version.  It is also inspired because who other than Price could pull off such a crazed kooky role as this.

Inspired in its storyline by Shakespeare's Richard III but also inspired by the style of the Poe adaptations Vincent Price was already part of (and would do more of again), Corman's film is a giddy macabre delight.  Done on the lowest of budget's of course, Corman gives us one of his richest, most visually textured and most psychologically layered films.  Reaching above the B-label, Tower of London is a frightfully good yarn.  Perhaps stiff at times (some of the actors are downright wooden) it is Price and his unique ability to give any production a sense of creepy dread while maintaining the most steadfast of respectable acting.  Only Boris Karloff was able to do this as successfully as Price in this genre.

Fun to watch (some Corman directed movies are far from a good time had by all) Tower of London is the story of a dying king, his gallant brother who he bequeaths guardianship of his children to (including the one who would be king) and his other brother, the hump-backed bitter Richard.  In Price's Richard we are shown a man who has been tormented his whole life, made to feel inferior to his brothers and even shunned by his own mother.  It is one of Price's juicier roles and one of his better performances.  Corman uses Prices already famed sense of actorly dread to make his film all the more ghoulish.  Perhaps the scenes with the ghosts are rather cheap looking, but the black and white cinematography helps make these work.  This may not be what most call great cinema (though Corman has made a handful of films as director that could be called such) but it certainly is what most should call fun cinema.

But above all the great Vincent Price, acting as hammy as anything he has ever done (and chewing enough scenery to fill the biggest of bellies) makes it all work as well as it does - and it does work surprisingly well.  Done straight, this film may seem more tired, but done in that infamous Vincent Price manner, the film is a delightfully gleeful B-movie horror schlock thingee well worth one's most precious time.