Since director Michael Reeves’s unfortunate death in 1969 at the age of 25 his life has become the stuff of cinematic legend. His reputation as a sort of Byronic hero who challenged the British film establishment was secured when he died much too young due to an accidental drug overdose leaving behind just a handful of low-budget horror films that attained cult status in subsequent years.
His distinct talent and the ephemeral nature of his work have led many of Reeve’s colleagues and admirers to speculate on the direction his career might have taken if he had lived longer and it’s not uncommon to see his name mentioned along with better known British filmmakers who also dealt with controversial material including Michael Powell and Ken Russell. Reeves’s bone-chilling WITCHFINDER GENERAL (1969), which explored the brutality of the witch hunts in England during the 17th century, is often cited as one of the greatest and most gruesome horror films produced during the 1960s but his most intimate and introspective film might be THE SORCERERS (1967).
THE SORCERERS was Reeves’s second feature film and his first for Tigon, a British film studio established by producer Tony Tenser. Much like its competitors Hammer and Amicus, Tigon was responsible for releasing and distributing several noteworthy genre films before closing its doors in the 1970s. Originally based on a script by John Burke that was adapted for the screen by Michael Reeves and Tom Baker, THE SORCERERS became a pet project for Reeves who managed to convince Boris Karloff to star in the film after the two men met in Madrid where Karloff had made a guest appearance in the popular TV series I SPY. Reeves’s youthful enthusiasm and appreciation for Karloff’s previous work appealed to the 79-year-old actor who agreed to appear in THE SORCERERS after reading the script but he demanded some changes. Karloff was getting tired of playing villains, monsters, and madmen so he insisted that his character should be more sympathetic. Reeves agreed to his request and rewrote the script to accommodate the actor.
The plot manages to blend elements of horror and science fiction into a unique concoction that involves Professor Marcus Monserrat (Boris Karloff), an elderly hypnotist who has been forced to live most of his life in isolation with his wife Estelle (Catherine Lacey) thanks to his unusual ideas and questionable medical ethics. The Monserrat’s reside in a shabby flat but their bleak surroundings hide a secret. The Professor has created a strange contraption that enables the couple to control and experience the sensations of its users but they need a willing test subject and he arrives in the form of Mike Roscoe (Ian Ogilvy).
Mike is a handsome, well-dressed lad who spends his evenings prowling the streets of Swinging London with his German girlfriend (Élisabeth Ercy) and best pal (Victor Henry). The three companions hang out in greasy cafes and nightclubs sharing drinks and listening to music but Mike’s become bored with their routine and is eager for new adventures. After a chance encounter on the street, Professor Monserrat manages to convince Mike to try out his new hypnosis machine which allows the old couple to gain control of the young man and manipulate his actions. The Professor’s intentions are benign but his spiteful wife has other plans and she begins using Mike as a surrogate for her greed-fueled longings and murderous desires.
Karloff’s decision to play the sympathetic character may have been a mistake because it gave his costar, the 63-year-old Catherine Lacey, the opportunity to chew up the scenery as his deeply troubled wife Estelle. Her blood lust and cruelty are profound and she seems to relish every line that she ferociously spits out. Lacey, who made her screen debut in Alfred Hitchcock’s THE LADY VANISHES (1938) playing a questionable nun, was apparently unhappy with her performance in THE SORCERERS and she detested the movie. It’s hard to imagine why she decided to disassociate with the film because Lacy is truly marvelous here and I think it provided her with one of the most memorable roles of her career.
Ian Ogilvy is also well-suited to play the tormented Mike Roscoe, a young charismatic man who isn’t particularly likable but becomes incredibly sympathetic by the film’s end. Ogilvy originally met Michael Reeves when they were just teenagers and they made their first film together when they were both 16-years old. When Reeves began directing professionally he immediately contacted Ogilvy who went on to appear in all three of his films.
Many critics and film historians including Robin Wood and Benjamin Halligan have pointed out Ogilvy’s striking resemblance to Reeves. The two were both attractive young men of a similar build who dressed alike and wore their hair in a particular fashion. If you had spotted them on set together you could be forgiven for thinking that they might be brothers. In this regard, Ogilvy can be seen as a stand-in for Reeves who makes his presence particularly felt in THE SORCERERS.
Like the young character of Mike Roscoe, director Mike Reeves was also a restless young man eager for new experiences and not afraid to seek them out. The hypnosis machine that lures Roscoe, with its psychedelic lights and synthesizer-like controls, suggests the use of mind-altering drugs that would eventually be Reeves’s downfall. It’s worth noting that the director came from a wealthy family that allowed him to pursue his whims and this is reflected in Roscoe’s somewhat cavalier approach to living. Reeves also found himself frequently facing off against hostile or indifferent old men who were either causing him difficulties or trying to derail his career such as the British censors who didn’t appreciate his determination to show the gory results of extreme violence in his films.
These are just a few examples of how Ogilvy’s character seems to unintentionally resemble the director, beginning with their corresponding names, but it’s possible Reeves was consciously (or even unconsciously) projecting much of himself and his own experiences into the character of Mike Roscoe. This kind of personal reflection by chance or by choice makes THE SORCERERS a particularly rich viewing experience for anyone interested in Reeves’s life and work.
The film is an interesting observation on the nature of viewer participation and the various ways in which human beings respond to sensory stimulation. Some insist that it is a critique of the hedonistic 1960s that emphasizes the propensity towards violence among youth at the time. I don’t buy into that theory. I tend to believe, as Ian Hunter illustrates in his recent book British Trash Cinema, that THE SORCERERS “sympathised with the young and demonized the Establishment.” This is plainly apparent in the way that the elderly characters threaten and torture the youthful Mike and aspire to overpower him.
Other critics such as Kim Newman have said that the film offers “. . . a despairing vision, of generations not so much in conflict as collaboration, soullessly feeding each other’s worst instincts.” While I appreciate Newman’s insightful observation I think the film’s alliances are more clearly defined. Maybe it’s because I tend to believe that human nurturing can overcome the basest elements of human nature? In that regard, THE SORCERERS offers up a fascinating look at the way our creators–parents, elders, teachers, authority figures–make us in their image, define our worldview and in this case turn us into cold-blooded killers if the need arises.
By most accounts, THE SORCERERS was a labor of love for the 23-year-old director who was forced to use many guerrilla filmmaking techniques during the production due to its limited budget. Streets scenes were shot without permits and real locations were used for the interiors, including the legendary Blaises Club (named after the comic and film character, Modesty Blaise) in London where musical acts such as Jimi Hendrix and Pink Floyd performed. When they couldn’t get permission to film at a particular location (such as the Dolphin Square Hotel where a pool scene was shot) bribes were used and security eventually let them shoot there.
The film’s action sequences were shot without doubles which often put the cast at risk (including the motorcycle racing which was done without helmets) and for the film’s climax involving a car chase that comes to a fiery end, the director and his crew decided to forgo safety measures. After locating a bomb site in Notting Hill left over from WW2, they doused a 1957 Jaguar with gas and set it on fire. The explosion that followed was so huge that it blew out the windows of nearby buildings and caused many crew members to momentarily lose their hearing. After quickly packing up their equipment, the cast and crew attempted to flee the scene, and most escaped without notice but a few crew members had to answer for the major mess they’d created. Thankfully no one was seriously hurt and the scene definitely packs a wallop. Was it worth the risk? I think so.
For decades the film was incredibly hard to see in the US where it languished on bootleg video but in 2012 the Warner Archives made it available on a barebones DVD. If you appreciate unusual British horror and science fiction films or just want to see some extreme guerrilla filmmaking in action, I highly recommend making time for THE SORCERERS. It’s a marvelous introduction to the work of Michael Reeves, a young, imaginative and risk-taking director who left us much too soon.
by Kimberly Lindbergs, originally published at TCM.com in 2014