UNCLE SILAS (called THE INHERITANCE upon initial release in the United States) fits well into the 1940s cycle of British adaptations of classic Victorian literature. Think David Lean's Dickens movies or the Alaistair Sims A CHRISTMAS CAROL, films which use gorgeous black and white photography and a blend of realism and melodrama to bring these gothic worlds to life.
Of course, UNCLE SILAS hasn't the literary pedigree of a Dickens' work: it is quite a sensational narrative, as close to the first-wave of gothic novels from the 18th century as Victorian gothic literature gets. For the trouble of being pretty and expecting a fortune when she comes of age, the heroine Caroline is threatened by a series of sinister forces connected with her Uncle Silas, a former rake and current drug addict who needs money badly to pay off his debts. He initially tries to get her to marry his lecherous son, but when Caroline makes it loud and clear that she won't do so, his methods turn ever more cruel and murderous.
UNCLE SILAS nails the gothic mood perfectly, showing the decay of Caroline's sunny adolescence as she loses her father and falls into the hands of evil. There is a wonderful symmetry in this progression-- the film begins with a close-up of the wide-eyed Caroline and ends with a similar close-up, now emphasizing her lost innocence after barely surviving the events of the film. Jean Simmons makes the perfect gothic heroine: beautiful, spunky, and virtuous, all without coming off as cloying or too dumb to live, a rare feat for this sort of story. The music is dramatic and spooky.
So why isn't the film the equal of, say, Lean's GREAT EXPECTATIONS or OLIVER TWIST? Mainly, it has to do with two things: pacing and the villains. I love a good slow burn, especially in creepy fare, but some of the middle section of UNCLE SILAS is too slow for its own good, probably because a few of these scenes lack the sinister presence of the forces pursuing Caroline and her money.
Secondly, the villains of the story are an uneven bunch. The sexually aggressive son and the ghastly governess are both slightly comical in presentation, but manage some level of menace when terrorizing Caroline. The son makes it clear he could physically overpower Caroline without a problem and what his intentions are for her, and the governess has a garish, harsh appearance and witch-like personality which would not feel out of place in a child's nightmare. Unfortunately, Uncle Silas himself is not scary at all. He is at times enjoyably camp and I'll never say no to a good ham-fest, but he's never truly frightening, often acting more like a whiny cartoon villain than the decadent, ruthless beast he is supposed to be.
I think the inconsistent sense of dread and menace is what brings UNCLE SILAS down a few pegs. It's still a good movie and one I would recommend to other classic film fans though, as its virtues outweigh its shortcomings.
Of course, UNCLE SILAS hasn't the literary pedigree of a Dickens' work: it is quite a sensational narrative, as close to the first-wave of gothic novels from the 18th century as Victorian gothic literature gets. For the trouble of being pretty and expecting a fortune when she comes of age, the heroine Caroline is threatened by a series of sinister forces connected with her Uncle Silas, a former rake and current drug addict who needs money badly to pay off his debts. He initially tries to get her to marry his lecherous son, but when Caroline makes it loud and clear that she won't do so, his methods turn ever more cruel and murderous.
UNCLE SILAS nails the gothic mood perfectly, showing the decay of Caroline's sunny adolescence as she loses her father and falls into the hands of evil. There is a wonderful symmetry in this progression-- the film begins with a close-up of the wide-eyed Caroline and ends with a similar close-up, now emphasizing her lost innocence after barely surviving the events of the film. Jean Simmons makes the perfect gothic heroine: beautiful, spunky, and virtuous, all without coming off as cloying or too dumb to live, a rare feat for this sort of story. The music is dramatic and spooky.
So why isn't the film the equal of, say, Lean's GREAT EXPECTATIONS or OLIVER TWIST? Mainly, it has to do with two things: pacing and the villains. I love a good slow burn, especially in creepy fare, but some of the middle section of UNCLE SILAS is too slow for its own good, probably because a few of these scenes lack the sinister presence of the forces pursuing Caroline and her money.
Secondly, the villains of the story are an uneven bunch. The sexually aggressive son and the ghastly governess are both slightly comical in presentation, but manage some level of menace when terrorizing Caroline. The son makes it clear he could physically overpower Caroline without a problem and what his intentions are for her, and the governess has a garish, harsh appearance and witch-like personality which would not feel out of place in a child's nightmare. Unfortunately, Uncle Silas himself is not scary at all. He is at times enjoyably camp and I'll never say no to a good ham-fest, but he's never truly frightening, often acting more like a whiny cartoon villain than the decadent, ruthless beast he is supposed to be.
I think the inconsistent sense of dread and menace is what brings UNCLE SILAS down a few pegs. It's still a good movie and one I would recommend to other classic film fans though, as its virtues outweigh its shortcomings.