Self Flagellation in the Name of Obsession

Having a “comfort actor” can be a blessing and a curse. It can lead you to your favorite films, but it can also lead you to some of the worst things put onto celluloid just for a few precious minutes of their screen time. Mine has become a bit of a running joke among friends; whenever I’m asked why I’m watching some obscure movie, I usually point to the cast list, and staring back is Udo Kier. 

You are more than likely familiar with Kier’s work even if you don’t recognize his name.. The man has been in over 270 projects including Flesh for Frankenstein (1973), Suspiria (1977), Ace Ventura: Pet Detective (1994), Blade (1998), and Scooby Doo: Mystery Incorporated (2010-2013). One peek at his IMDb page and you will probably find something you are familiar with. With that many credits to your name, there are bound to be some truly awful titles… Udo is not immune to this, and I have voluntarily suffered through many bottom of the barrel films in order for a quick glimpse of him.

You also may be wondering why I'm bringing this up. Please understand that this sadomasochistic relationship is the reason I'm even writing the article I'm writing

The House on Straw Hill (also known as Exposé and Trauma) is a 1976 film written and directed by James Kenelm Clarke, coming during a time when Hammer Films had been phased out and exploitation had taken a firm hold on the horror genre. Straw Hill’s initial release was marred with cuts due to its graphic violence and sex scenes, and eventually the uncut home video was banned in the UK following the passing of the Video Recordings Act of 1984, becoming one of the infamous “Video Nasties” and the only one to have originated in Britain. It has since been released fully restored and uncut by Severin, using the original negative and two different prints to make it look as best as modern technology can help it.

The plot is a psychosexual tale of writer Paul Martin (Kier, badly dubbed) secluded in the English countryside trying to write his new novel. He hires typist Linda who, unbeknownst to him, is completely obsessed with him and is seeking revenge on him for a dark secret he covered up.

Suppose it ended up on the Video Nasties list for a reason. Much of the film is devoted to sex and power dynamics. Within the first five minutes there is a borderline softcore scene, and from there the sexual tension never really dies down. The novel Paul is writing is rather spicy, and he seems to see both his girlfriend Suzanne (played by British sex symbol Fiona Richmond) and Linda (Linda Hayden of Taste the Blood of Dracula (1970) and The Blood on Satan’s Claw (1971) fame) as objects for him to use however he pleases. The camerawork adds onto this sleazy atmosphere, often drifting through the house and lingering on bodies from a distance. The violence is mixed in with said sexuality, featuring a completely unnecessary rape mid film and a Psycho inspired death scene, nudity included.

The casting in this is a major issue, specifically Kier and Richmond. Kier (dare I say) is too delicate looking for the part of a womanizer author who likes to have rough sex wearing reusable rubber gloves. Knowing he was approached at a screening of The Story of O (1975) to be in this makes total sense, as he is out of place in that film as well. The upside of that is at least he is trying his best with the material; Richmond, on the other hand, cannot act. She seems to know her entire purpose in the film is to be shown off, and it gets on your nerves rather quickly. Hayden is just as exposed in this film as Richmond, but she actively milks her role as a femme fatale, balancing the seductive and coy side with the malicious and revenge hungry. Richmond is simply a pretty face to be gawked at, and she knows this. In retrospect Hayden has said that she regrets making the film, and Kier has said he thought Richmond was just a “person trying to be naked in a movie”, so I suppose I’m not alone in those sentiments.

Another major enigma is where this film wants the audience’s focus to be vs where it actually is. Paul is dominant for the first half of the film, with little hints that Linda has something bigger in mind. He orders her to write whatever he tells her as she plays along, yet there is some perverted focus on her, be it the multiple self pleasuring sessions we see, the very quick comeuppance her rapists get, or her standing over Paul when he’s had too much to drink and hallucinates on the floor. This is flipped when Paul invites Suzanne back over for his own personal plaything; before he can have a satisfying moment with her, Suzanne has been seduced, triggering a primal rage that compels him to have rough (albeit weirdly consensual) sex with her. By the time it is revealed Paul is a complete fraud, Linda has murdered Suzanne and forcefully finished Paul’s novel; yet the film loses focus with Paul searching for and then running from Linda. For a film that wants to position itself as an entry in the “rape-revenge” subgenre (in between The Last House on the Left (1972) and I Spit On Your Grave (1978)), it doesn’t seem to pick a particular view. Instead, it revels in the twisted dynamic between Paul and Linda, and how she ends up overtaking him and his self importance, no matter who’s side the audience ends up seeing it from.

As the years have gone on, this is a pretty grimy flick, and remains a bit of a guilty pleasure of mine. This is by no means a good movie, and is far from the best “Video Nasty”, but still I really enjoy it even with its faults. Some sick part of me really enjoys having conflicting elements in a lesser known film like this, one where maybe its legacy isn’t as beloved as The Evil Dead (1981), or as controversial as Cannibal Holocaust (1980) (both of which were also on the infamous DPP list). It has become buried amongst the more well known films, and perhaps doesn’t have the greatest reputation out there. However in that lies some joy, to see a film that lives up to its reputation, and not be hampered as times goes on, unlike how many other “nasties” have fared. Just a little magic like that can keep me coming back for more, willing to rewatch over and over no matter if I’ll come away with a smile or a grimace.

Parker S.