aka Night of the Eagle
90 min. (British version), 1962
Directed by Sidney Hayers
My rating: ![]()
IMDB • Netflix
No sinister plots can match the machinations of a university faculty.
* * *
Premise
Despite being the newest addition to his university’s faculty, psychology professor Norman Taylor is on the fast track to academic and career success, even surpassing the efforts of his more experienced colleagues. However, the Norman is shocked to find out the real secret of his success: his wife Tansy has been practicing witchcraft, casting spells to protect him from the sinister machinations of unseen forces. A staunch rationalist, Norman forces Tansy to give up her practices…and almost immediately, the his fortunes take a turn for the worse. Can it be true that there are supernatural powers arranged against him?
Review
Burn, Witch, Burn (original, slightly spoilery British title: Night of the Eagle) is one of several film adaptations of Fritz Leiber’s novel Conjure Wife. The source material is well-known enough in its genre so that if you’re a fan of fantasy fiction, you probably have a good idea of the novel’s premise (it’s the one where pretty much every woman in the world is a witch) even if you haven’t actually read it.
That being said, the story of Burn, Witch, Burn very much feels like the work of its screenwriters, the Twilight Zone scribes Richard Matheson (if you haven’t heard of him by now, you haven’t been paying attention) and Charles Beaumont. The script manages to pull off a neat trick: it’s simultaneously very cool and rational in tone, yet is more than a little condescending towards those who don’t believe in the supernatural (the latter being a Matheson trademark; I’m a bit of a philosophical materialist, but I didn’t find it too annoying).
There were a couple of “creepy-for-creepy’s sake” moments that didn’t seem to have anything to do with anything else. And honestly, the additions made by AIP to the American version (most notably a laughably purple opening narration from Paul Frees, narrator of Hardware Wars) don’t to the movie any favors. Still, the film’s rarely at odds with itself, events develop at a strong and steady pace, and I was particularly tickled by its portrayal of the pettiest aspects of the life academic.
Director Sidney Hayers adopts a chilly tone that’s perfect for the film, and makes great use of the inherent contrasts of black-and-white photography. (The nighttime footage is some of the most beautiful I’ve ever seen, rivaling Dementia-13.) Great use is made of sound effects; the one major visual effects set piece is a bit wonky by today’s standards–I expect modern audiences would have a hard time swallowing it–but I think it worked rather well.
Peter Wyngarde does a great job as Norman: dashing, charismatic, magnetic, intellectual…everything the role requires. I didn’t feel that Janet Blair’s performance as Tansy was as effective; I thought she overplayed the role a bit, particularly in scenes developing the character’s backstory. On the other hand, the performance seems to be rooted in more theatrical techniques and, by my reckoning at least, she doesn’t do anything that’s outright unforgivable by the standards of the early ’60s. The supporting cast is excellent, particularly Bill Mitchell as a surly, underachieving student and Margaret Johnston as the school secretary. The weakest performance comes from Judith Stott, who’s a bit too shrill and one-note as Margaret, a student with a crush on Norman who later makes a shocking accusation. (Incidentally, keep an eye out for Colin Gordon…both Gordon and Wyngarde played Number Two on The Prisoner.)
Burn, Witch, Burn is probably a bit too rooted in its time period to be taken seriously by the mass of modern audiences. But there’s still plenty to enjoy, particularly some great performances, beautiful photography, and a wickedly cynical vision of academia.
Have You Read...?
![<b>Jack Frost 2: Revenge of the Mutant Killer Snowman [reviewed by the Drudgeon]</b>](http://forcedviewing.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/jack-frost-2.png)
![<b>Nine Dead [Reviewed by Jori]</b>](http://forcedviewing.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/nine-dead.png)
![<b>House of Voices [Reviewed by Lackey]</b>](http://forcedviewing.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/house-of-voices.png)









Beaumont is a writer who died far too young, and as for Matheson, if you want to see him at his preachiest, you should read MEDIUMS RARE. (The trademark you mentioned is the only thing about his work that turns me off.)
For some reason, I always confuse Beaumont with Earl Hamner, who also wrote for The Twilight Zone and went on to create The Waltons.