Tony Tenser, Part 1: Tenser As Nature Intended

Before I begin, a short message before we get into this episode.

is controversial is that, in: 1977

A variety of other charges had been placed against him, including rape by use of drugs – which he denied.

As you may know, Polanski has never faced the consequences of this; he fled jurisdiction shortly after making these admissions.

rtain aspects of Polanski’s: 1960

And now, on with the episode…

My name is Val Thomas.

And This is the Big Screen Biograph. Recounting the stories behind the people behind the movies….

This time, British Film Producer Tony Tenser… Part 1: Straight Outta Compton

Good evening ladies and gentlemen! It’s time for another Cinema Newstime Newreel! Giving all our British patrons the latest headlines, right here in the cinema!

[SERIOUS MUSIC]

Here we see British forces, parachuting into Egypt to heroically recapture the Suez Canal! That’s one in the eye for General Nasser – look out General! Britain doesn’t take kindly to bullies!

[LIGHTER MUSIC]

And here’s her Queen Elizabeth II, touring Nigeria! Her Majesty received an extremely warm welcome, but the demands of her office never, stop so it’s back to the Royal Yacht and goodbye to Nigeria, for our hard-working sovereign!

[ROCK N ROLL MUSIC]

Look out girls! It’s Elvis Presley! This young fellow seems to be causing a bit of a stir in the United States of America! With his foot-tapping tunes and saucy gyrations, he’s winning hearts and topping charts everywhere he goes! How about a visit to Britain, Elvis?

[CHEEKY MUSIC]

And what’s this? In Soho – the throbbing heart of London’s entertainment scene – we find a group of saucy London strippers, protesting that Brigitte Bardot, France’s naughtiest export is putting them out of business! That’s right, the flirty French ingenue has been emptying London’s glamorous nightclubs with her saucy new film “And God Created Woman” and these lovely ladies don’t like it one bit! Good luck, girls!

The year was: 1956

Enter publicity man Tony Tenser. The film distribution company he was working for needed something to pique the interest of the public. Tony – knowing how the press worked – and more importantly knowing press MEN – seedy little chaps eager to come out and cover a story like this – went to see his friend Michael Klinger who ran a strip club, and borrow a dozen of his strippers for this staged event. Tony also coined the phrase “sex kitten” to describe Brigitte Bardot – a nickname that would follow her for the rest of her career.

The stripper protest was to prove the first in a series of business collaborations between Tony Tenser and Michael Klinger. And the start of one of the most extraordinary careers in British cinema. Welcome to the tale of Tony Tenser.

[TONY TENSER THEME]

Tony Tenser came to the film industry by accident. Oh, it wasn’t as though he didn’t like films. He described how, as a child he loved Westerns and the Universal horror movies of Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi. It is just that, growing up in London’s East End as the son of Lithuanian immigrants during the Depression, the idea of actually making something as magical as a film seemed absurdly fanciful. Back in those days, it was all about putting dinner on the table, and keeping soles on your shoes.

Tony worked in a lumber yard, before being drafted when World War II broke out. On his return to civilian life, he took a job working for his uncle’s tailoring business. It just so happened that one of their orders was supplying uniforms to a local cinema. And it was through this connection that Tony took a job as a cinema manager – a job which in those days involved scheduling the films shown, and promoting them locally.

As it turns out that Tony had a real gift for promotion and marketing of films. His talents were noticed, and this led him to join the publicity department of Miracle Films – a small distribution company, for whom he arranged the Brigitte Bardot stunt.

lub attracted bored, stressed: 1950

And I’m sure you know what sort of films THAT meant… And the potential profits in showing them…

Tenser and Klinger set up a club called “The Compton Cinema Club”. It wasn’t all nudity and exploitation. The club also showed uncut versions of controversial Hollywood movies. One early screening was of like Marlon Brando’s “The Wild One”. They also showed independent art movies coming out of Europe. But yes, the Compton Club also did a fine trade in screening the incredibly popular naturist documentaries of the time, with titles like “The Nudist Stories”, “Nudist Memories” and “Nudist Paradise”.

[NUDIST TRAILER]

Of course, if the profits from distribution are good then potentially the profits from production and distribution would be greater still. Tenser and Klinger pulled together a very modest budget for a film to be distributed by their own company, also called Compton.

nd Klinger scraped together £: 3000

The pair hired candid photographer, George Harrison Marks and packed him off to Cornwall in September, to make his naturist movie, “Naked… As Nature Intended”.

And let me just repeat. Cornwall. September.

The film that resulted is exactly what you think it is. An incredibly coy tale of healthy young women, frocking – or attempting to frolic – in England in the Autumn. To avoid an outright ban, no pubic hair is shown, but there are a lot of bums and boobs as the women engage in high-jinks by the pool, then go to the beach to throw a beach ball around.

One of the actresses kept her legs firmly clamped together, and make judicious use of that beach-ball, “I don’t want anyone seeing me biscuit,” she explained.

In between these scenes, there are educational segments about the joys of naturist living and a visit to Stonehenge of all places. But despite this, and despite an official endorsement by Britain’s naturist movement, John Trevelyan – Britain’s chief censor at that time – chose to impose a ban on the film for showing too much nudity. But this wasn’t necessarily an obstacle to Tony Tenser and Max Klinger. In fact it was a positive boon.

For you see, the censor’s recommendation was only that – a recommendation. It could be overridden by local councils, if they wished. And such was the case around Britain. Many councils viewed the film and found it no worse than many of the other naturist documentaries. As a result, Tenser and Klinger were able to show their film around the country, and in their private club AND claim it was the film, “the censor didn’t WANT you to see!”

Of course – some local councils which had more Victorian members, agreed with the censor and decided to ban the film. But even that worked in the film’s favour. Disappointed audiences simply hopped on a bus and travelled to the nearest town that WAS showing the film to see what all the fuss was about.

ears and that investment of £: 3000

Compton films rapidly followed up “Naked As Nature Intended” with two more nude titles, “The Nude Ones” and “My Bare Lady”. But the time of the nude films was coming to a close. The times were changing. The verdict from the Lady Chatterly obscenity trial showed that. Nudity was starting to make its way into mainstream cinema too – accompanied by an actual story, with actual acting. Tony Tenser and Michael Klinger sensed that change and moved with the times.

Now, the term “exploitation cinema” is almost meaningless now. That is because it refers to those films which featured a subject that the “respectable” studios would never cover, so a low-budget producer could give the public something they couldn’t see elsewhere. And here the subjects could be as extreme as things like cannibalism or as mild as something like marijuana usage.

And so you can see why exploitation cinema is a thing of the past. Big budget cannibal thrillers like Silence of the Lambs can win Oscars. And if Seth Rogen DIDN’T smoke pot in a film it would be surprising. I think the last true exploitation film that broke the barriers and showed something you couldn’t see elsewhere was Reservoir Dogs, nearly 30 years ago. And Quentin Tarantino isn’t just influential, he is practically mainstream these days.

But back in the early: 1960

[THAT KIND OF GIRL TRAILER]

Compton could get away with making films like this by openly disapproving of their subject matter. And perverted punters who went along to these films hoping for salacious subject matter were likely disappointed. Both of these films are long, talky and dull. But the subject matter was enough to turn a good profit for Compton – with Tony Tenser proving himself adept at capturing the attention of the jaded press. He arranged screenings of “The Yellow Teddybears” for actual schoolgirls – to prove that the film was unlikely to corrupt and had morally redeeming value. And the British press helpfully responded with headlines like, SCHOOLGIRLS HAVE X-FILM LESSON ON LIFE! And SHOCKED – NOT US! SAY GIRLS.

Yes, it is puerile, prurient and stupid. Welcome to the British newspaper industry.

Another way to exploit “forbidden” subjects was to adopt an educational approach to them. We may not approve of these lifestyles, say high-handed documentaries like “Primitive London” and “London in the Raw”, but ooooh look at that.

[PRIMITIVE LONDON/LONDON IN THE RAW TRAILERS]

s feature scenes around early: 1960

[KEY PARTY]

But in between these segments, there are scenes of burlesque dancers. One dancer’s narration is particularly hilarious.

[INSERT NARRATION HERE]

This is the sort of thing that grandad got off on. Try not to think about it.

Like their previous naturist movies, Compton’s slice of London life documentaries were extremely profitable, but the fad was fleeting. This didn’t worry Michael and Tony too much – they already had other avenues to pursue.

By: 1964

But the ambitions of the pair reached beyond pushing Italian action films onto the public. Tony loved hosting press conferences where he would list the films that Compton were getting ready to push into production. One such conference included titles like, “The Teenage Terror” (never made), “The Loch Ness Monster” (never made), “The Day The Earth Caved In” (never made) and “The Pleasure Girls” (more on that later). But their most lavish production at that time was “The Black Torment”.

“The Black Torment” was inspired by one of the regular patrons at their Compton cinema club. The patron was James Carreras – who founded Hammer Films. Hammer was the great British success story at that time. Their lurid tales of gory horror mixed with panting, barely concealed sexual desire was a huge hit globally. The American market lapped it up, and the films travelled well to other overseas markets like Japan, India and Australasia. And the heady mix of sex and scares seemed right up Compton’s street.

“The Black Torment” was based on a Gothic melodramatic novel for which they had already purchased the rights. And they put their most reliable director onto the project – Rupert Hartford-Davis. He didn’t have the style and sophistication – or the budget – of Hammer’s finest director Terence Fisher. But he could be relied upon to bring in a film on budget – or so Tenser and Klinger thought. He’d done a fine job in delivering their low-budget exploitation dramas up to this point, including “That Kind of Girl”, moving productions along quickly and not getting bogged down in perfectionism.

va, nor the trippy bravura of: 1960

Tenser and Klinger were not impressed. And here’s where, I must confess, I have some sympathy for the producers. You often hear heartbreaking tales of directors whose artistic vision was compromised by troglodyte money-men. But, on the other hand, here was Hartford-Davis burning through their extremely limited cash, and threatening their other productions.

Apparently Tenser asked Hartford-Davis how far behind schedule he was. When Rupert admitted he was nearly two weeks behind, Tenser pulled the classic producer move of tearing out several pages from the shooting script and telling Hartford-Davis he was now back on track.

Hartford-Davis never forgave the producers for this, and never worked for them again. He also resented their interference in attempting to make the film more commercial. The biggest change they insisted upon was to move the story back a century of centuries – from the 19th to the 18th – so that the actresses could wear more revealing Hanoverian low-cut frocks – instead of buttoned-up Victorian ones.

Despite this, the final film is actually a lot of fun. It is definitely a lesser British horror film from that period. But it could compare to something you might find on the bottom half of a Hammer double bill. The story has a landowner, named Sir Richard Fordyke, returning to his family home with a new wife, after the death of his first wife. But on arrival he finds himself besieged by the locals, who accuse him of rape and murder. There are eyewitnesses, they say – despite his being far away at the time.

The mystery deepens when his doppelganger is spotted all around the village, getting into fights and making promises which Sir Richard strenuously denies. And as if that weren’t bad enough, a strange spectral figure seems to be blame him for her death… Could it be his first wife?

While watching this film, you may sense the loss of those ten pages of script. While the atmosphere is nicely evoked, and the acting is wonderfully overwrought, and the plot moves at a decent clip, it does suffer from one of those 11th hour revelations which explains the whole mystery but which has been kept from the audience for no good reason up until now.

orment” to anyone who loves: 1960

There’s also a huge swashbuckling swordfight in this film, which I must admit I was not expecting.

As you might imagine, the film was met with mixed reviews. And while Compton didn’t lose money on it, The Black Torment didn’t worry James Carreras. There could only ever be one Hammer Films.

[THE PLEASURE GIRLS TRAILER]

With a title and a trailer like that, you could be forgiven for assuming this was another of Compton’s sensationalist takes on modern youth in swinging London. However, although this film was very loosely inspired by the lifestyle of the Profumo women – Christine Keeler and Mandy Rhys-Davis – and although it references subjects like abortion and gambling. It’s a far more free-wheeling and less preachy film than “That Kind of Girl”.

The plot is a series of interrelated stories involving young women in a trendy London flat. What I find striking about it is that the women are all fairly strong and interesting, for a film from this period. Meanwhile, most of the male characters are awful, weaselly, weak and corrupt. The most likable man in the film turns out to be gay.

Director Gerry O’Hara kept costs down by filming most of the film on location, avoiding studio time and speeding up the production time. It went pretty smoothly except the producer Harry Fine – and behind him Tony Tenser – were worried that the film wasn’t nearly sexy enough, given the salacious title. Rewrites were forced on the harried director to set more scenes in the bedroom – even if was just one of the women talking on the phone, and Harry Fine made a number of “helpful” wardrobe suggestions to ensure the women spent their down time, lounging around in revealing nighties. Which is, of course, what women do all the time when men aren’t watching.

t still contains the standard: 1960

As it turns out, Klaus Kinski was not the only European who found himself stranded in London with no cash. A bright young directorial talent had recently emerged in Polish director, Roman Polanski. Polanski’s feature film debut, “A Knife in the Water” had emerged from the Berlin Film Festival with prizes and plaudits.

Buoyed by this success, Polanski began touting a script called, “When Katelbach Comes” around the major studios in Hollywood, where executives were impressed by his talent, but not enough to invest in it. Polanski tried his luck in London where he find the British studios impressed by his talent… but no… the script was too experimental…

Even Hammer’s James Carreras turned down “When Katelbach Comes”. But Hammer was a studio with no need to rock the boat. They had an established formula and it worked. What Polanski needed was a young, risk-taking studio, keen to exploit the headlines in hiring this bright new talent. Tony Tenser was in.

But not, “When Katelbach Comes”. Tony was clear on that. Polanski’s surrealist comedy would have to wait. It was TOO arty. And the budget would be prohibitive. Tenser asked Polanski to come up with something a little more – modest. Polanski too a few weeks and returned with a script for a film called “Lovelihead” about a young woman’s descent into madness. There would be some location shooting, but a very small cast. It would be mostly set in the confines of the woman’s flat, as her sexual terrors and confinement drive her to the brink of insanity, Polanski explained.

Perfect. Said Tenser. And just like that, “Repulsion” was Compton’s newest production.

It did not go smoothly.

Polanski’s budget was tiny. Just £45,000. But such things did not concern the auteur. He demanded a specific (and expensive) director of photography. He demanded Catherine Deneuve for the lead role – she also did not come cheap. Despite being relatively unknown outside of France at that time, she was huge in her home country where she had made a huge impact in the film, “Les Parapluies de Cherbourg”.

Worse still, Polanski was a perfectionist. Beyond that. Even if a take was fine. Even if a take was perfect, with the perfect set-up and the perfect lighting and the perfecting acting and the perfect gestures and the perfect delivery. He’d want to do it again. And again. And again.

Tenser and Klinger were practically pulling their hair out, but could do little to influence the Auteur at Work. They spoke with the line producer, Polanski’s good friend Gene Gutowski who did his best to intercede with Polanski, to little success. He was a man driven, an artist delivering his vision. And if that included multiple takes of a clock face. Then that was the way it was going to be.

Catherine Deneuve also found him frustrating to work with. Polanski knew what he wanted from the actress. The haunted void in her eyes. The fracturing of her personality onscreen. He denied Deneuve a long weekend to visit her boyfriend because he wanted to capture her sexual frustration for the camera. At the same time he pushed his inexperienced crew to produce the complicated special effects the film required. The Compton crew, used to shooting quickly, and on location, had no idea how to get the walls of the flat to crack on cue, or for grasping hands to emerge through a wall, and they had to figure it out themselves. And it had to be JUST RIGHT or – cut! Reset! We’re doing it again!

But underlying the anger and frustration – and Tony’s concerns as the film’s original budget doubled to £95,000 – was the sense that this film – now renamed “Repulsion” – was something very special. Tony’s reaction to the first cut of the film was sheer astonishment. Compton had only gone and made a work of art. He described the film as “electrifying”.

The other benefit to working with Polanski was Polanski’s knack for publicity and self-promotion. He was constantly surrounded by the elite of Swinging London, from Michael Caine to Julie Christie, all keen to rub shoulders with the young genius. And Tony Tenser’s experienced marketing skills kicked into gear.

[REPULSION TRAILER]

Quite what Polanski thought of that frantic fantasy of fact and fiction trailer, I don’t know. His film is nowhere near as sensational as the montage suggests, but it is extraordinary. “Repulsion” is considered to be the first of his “Apartment” trilogy, films which examine the isolation and terror of city living, and which would be followed by “Rosemary’s Baby” and “The Tenant”.

In the film, Carol (played by Deneuve) is a beautician working in a busy parlour in the middle of swinging London. She lives with her sister and her sister’s boyfriend, but it is clear that she’s troubled. She’s painfully withdrawn, her eyes averted, her head down. Small things seem to physically affect her and make her sick, she’s distracted and alone. And no-one – not her well-meaning manager at the salon, nor her would-be boyfriend can find the cause of the problem.

I must concede, Catherine Deneuve is perfect for the role and I can well understand Polanski’s insistence that she play the part. She moves through the film, closed in on herself, so tightly wound that only her eyes can express her inner trauma, her absolute terror at her surroundings. She’s a Belgian woman, alone in a foreign city, where the men see only her long blonde hair and perfect looks. They call out to her and touch her and stare at her. They have no idea how to communicate with her – except sexually.

In her sister’s apartment, it’s no better. The very presence of her sister’s boyfriend troubles her. Even the sight of his razor in the bathroom and his shirt in the laundry make her ill. But things worsen when he takes Carol’s sister away for a few days. Alone in the flat, Carol’s fears intensify. The ticking of the clock, the cracking of the walls begins to oppress her. The flat takes on a darker, threatening aspect. Hallways elongate, ceilings loom lower… and who’s that in the mirror behind her…?

And suddenly all that perfectionism starts to make sense. You can watch this film and spend your time just watching the background. There’s nearly always something happening back there, something closing in on Carol. The film never explains what exactly is troubling her. You can assume she’s suffering from the trauma of a previous sexual assault – possibly as a child from her father, or even at the hands of her sister’s boyfriend. Or both. But you’ll never be sure. You see, for most of the time, the film keeps us in Carol’s head of confusion, fear and isolation. We experience her world. We are threatened by those same, grasping, greedy men.

xposes the toxic attitudes of: 1960

[PUB SCENE]

It’s interesting to note that, in fact, one of Carol’s murder victims was to be a woman in the original script. The boyfriend of Carol’s sister is married – this is in the final script. And his wife makes numerous calls to the flat. But originally it was conceived that she would turn up looking for him, only to be despatched by Carol. Polanski cut this, as it does seem antithetical to the film’s theme – that Carol murders out of sheer terror at the threatening males who force their way into her life.

“Repulsion” repays Tony Tenser’s initial confidence in Polanski, and then some. It’s a dense, rich film, that bears repeated viewings, if you can stomach it. Nearly 60 years after it was released, its themes are still relevant today. Personally, I think still one of this best films – with Polanski’s trademark self-indulgence reined in by the tight budget. Ironically enough, it’s that same low budget that causes Polanski to dislike the film himself, referring to it as “shoddy”.

But despite Polanski’s feeling that this is one of his minor films, written and made in a hurry, it does contain some of the themes that would continue to run through his later work. After all, you can see echoes of Carol from Repulsion in Everlyn from Chinatown. In these films, trauma is only ever sublimated – it never dies.

In its time, the film did what Compton needed it to do – it was a huge hit at the Cannes Film Festival and a massive financial success around the world. And suddenly Compton were no longer the smallest fish in the pond. They were big. They were successful. And as calls started coming in from the Hollywood studios about possible collaborations, they were suddenly… international. With audiences around the world clamouring to see what Polanski would do next.

To Michael Klinger, it was obvious. They would allow Polanski the freedom to shoot the film he’d originally wanted to make – “When Katelbach Comes”, now renamed “Cul de Sac”.

The story tells of a pair of criminals, injured and isolated, who take over the home of a nouveau-riche but effete businessman, played by Donald Pleasence and his trophy wife, played by Francis Dorleac. I say “home”, it’s more like a chateau. Crossed with a castle.

The criminals are played by Lionel Stander – best known as “Max” the bodyguard from “Hart to Hart” and Jack MacGowran who would turn up again in Polanski’s next film, “The Fearless Vampire Killers”.

During the course of the film, the two criminals go from being a threatening presence to creating an uneasy alliance with the married couple. During the course of their stay, the criminals must endure a visit from Donald Pleasence’s deeply unpleasant friends and their horrible child – and Donald Pleasence’s character finds the criminal way of approaching problems somewhat liberating.

’s part-satire on bourgeois: 1960

And with a synopsis like that, you can imagine how Tony Tenser’s marketing mind was perplexed by the project. What would the poster look like? Would there be girls? Violence? Despite Polanski’s name it was a tougher sell than “Repulsion” and Tenser was concerned. But Michael Klinger liked the idea of Compton becoming a legitimate name in British film production, creating quality projects. And so, following the terrific success of “Repulsion”, “Cul de Sac” was allocated a £120k budget.

Still low for a British film production, but huge for Compton. And potentially disastrous if things went wrong.

And, straight away, things went wrong.

Polanski determined he wished to shoot the majority of the film on location on Holy Island, in the north of England. Battered by the elements and plagued by insects, the cast quickly became fractious and argumentative. Donald Pleasence alienated the rest of the cast by attempting to steal every scene he was in. Lionel Stander annoyed everyone by bragging about his career and refusing to work more than six hours a day. Polanski pushed Francis Dorleac to the edge of hypothermia by having her frolic in a bikini in the North Sea, and Donald Pleasence threatened to walk out due to Polanski’s treatment of the actress.

And Polanski’s perfectionism continued to cause delays. With shooting on location, there was now the additional complication of the harsh north winds, blowing the clouds across the sky and causing Polanski continuity issues. Tenser and Klinger tried to apply their usual pressure as the budget spiralled out of control, but Polanski – out of their reach on Holy Island, casually filed their telegrams in the bin.

In the end, it was Michael Klinger who shut down production on the disastrous shoot, forcing Polanski to finish off his film in the studio.

The end result was still a huge hit for Compton. Essentially the film was already showing a profit even before it was released, due to foreign pre-sales based on the Polanski name alone. All the same, it was a chastening experience for Tony Tenser, and the start of a crack in his professional relationship with Michael Klinger.

atkowska-Lass divorced him in: 1962

Despite this – and despite the financial headaches Polanski had caused – Tenser said he would quite willingly have worked with Polanski again. But by now, Hollywood was beckoning. And Compton returned to what they did best. Exploitation!

[THE PROJECTED MAN TRAILER]

To reflect their now differing priorities, Michael and Tony separated their roles. Michael would focus on the projects that interested him – prestige projects like a live action musical of Alice in Wonderland and a North African adventure named “Beau Brigand”. Meanwhile, Tony would continue to focus on those projects which he knew he could market at home and sell abroad. “The Projected Man” was one of these. It borrowed liberally from films like “The Fly” and “Man Made Monster” to tell the tale of a scientist who teleports himself into another dimension, only to return as a hideous mutant who can electrocute people with a single touch.

was a silly, cheap film – a: 1950

“The Secrets of a Windmill Girl” was also something of a throwback to Compton’s earlier output. And in fact, some of it was shot some years earlier. You see, the Compton Group had bought the old Windmill Theatre – a London institution in which glamorous women had danced, and naked women posed for frisky World War II era servicemen. Tenser and Klinger closed it down and converted it into a modern, stylish cinema.

To their credit, Tenser and Klinger did this at a time when most of the old art-deco picture palaces were in steep decline. Either turning into sticky flea-pits, or being converted into bingo halls.

However, ever conscious of an opportunity to cash in on notoriety, Tenser and Klinger had arranged to have some footage shot both from the audience’s point of view, and behind the scenes at one of the Windmill Theatre’s last ever live shows. This footage had sat unused until a narrative was shot around it, and the film issued as another one of their salutary tales of vice and woe, “The Secrets of a Windmill Girl.”

Aside from being an interesting document on the closing of a London institution, it’s not a very good film. The plot is predictable, although it is helped by having Pauline Collins as the star. She would go on to a great tv career and to star in the title role of Willy Russell’s fantastic “Shirley Valentine”.

But Compton would have one great exploitation film left in them. In my opinion, it was the closest they ever got to emulating their rivals over at Hammer. It’s one last, lovely gasp of period-drama horror, full of great actors, an interesting plot, and gruesome East End murders… I give you… “A Study in Terror”…

Strangely enough, this was a project which had originally begun life as a Sherlock Holmes musical. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s legacy of stories was entrusted to two gentlemen - Henry Lester and Adrian Conan-Doyle (Sir Arthur’s son). They had conceived the idea of “Baker Street!” a Broadway musical based on the characters of Holmes and Watson. When this fell through, they fell in with Herman Cohen, an American producer who had produced the wonderfully garish horror film “The Horrors of the Black Museum”.

Herman Cohen and Tony Tenser were like-minded chaps who got along rather well, and so it was Cohen who approached Tenser and brought him the idea of reviving Sherlock Holmes for the big screen.

Tony Tenser was apprehensive at first. Like many people, he associated onscreen Holmes very strongly with Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, and insisted that Compton make a very different kind of Holmes story. Tony Tenser says it was he who came up with the idea of Holmes investigating Jack the Ripper, and he took the idea to writers Derek and Donald Ford, who had also adapted “The Black Torment” for Compton.

lmes tracks the Ripper – in: 1979

Despite their research, the Fords did play fast and loose with some of the events to meet the demands of the plot – and the box office. The victims of Jack the Ripper are generally younger than their real-life counterparts, in order to allow for glamorous women to be cast in their roles. Undoubtedly the most prominent victim is Barbara Windsor, who takes time off from the Carry On films to play Annie Chapman, although she’s still the same bubbly, saucy Babs we know and love.

[CLIP]

As for Holmes and Watson, the actors John Neville and Donald Houston were cast respectively. They both acquit themselves admirably in the roles, with Houston doing his best to downplay Dr. Watson as a bumbler, astonished by Holmes’s intellect. It’s no disrespect to Nigel Bruce, the classic Watson. In fact it’s something of a compliment that his version of the role came to be so memorable, that Houston felt a need to distance himself from it. Well – for the most part…

[YOU ARE SITTING ON MY PIPE]

Adrian Conan-Doyle and Henry Lester contributed £100k to the production on behalf of Sir Nigel Films – the company which administered the Holmes stories. This meant the whole endeavour was given a very generous £160k budget, a lot of which went on an incredibly strong supporting cast. This included Frank Finlay as Inspector Lestrade, Anthony Quayle as an East End doctor and an astonishingly young Judi Dench as his daughter. Dame Judi was relatively new to the screen but was – at that time – establishing herself as an incredibly talented actor in the Royal Shakespeare Company. The film also boasts the first portrayal of Mycroft Holmes – Sherlock’s older brother – played by the venerable Robert Morley. And as an interesting postscript to the above, both Anthony Quayle and Frank Finlay would also appear in the other Holmes vs The Ripper film, “Murder by Decree”. Finlay even plays the same part.

This handsome cast, a bigger budget than usual, and an interesting director in James Hill – who was at the time cutting his teeth on the experimental and exciting tv series, The Avengers – promised something special. The film was shot in studios, which lovingly recreated Victorian-era East End streets, and the film also used some actual East End locations. Consequently the film is drenched in the atmosphere of the age, with cheeky prostitutes whispering things like, “Does the gentleman fancy a bit o’ company?” from the shadows, while malevolent footsteps echo down darkened alleys and raucous laughter from pubs drowns out the screams of the murdered women.

The pub scenes are marvellous, actually. Packed with costumed extras and wonderfully choreographed to create the atmosphere of a chaotic, smoky, smelly pub where posh gents slum it alongside gangsters, pimps, roughnecks and sailors.

All of this in contrast to the brightly-lit, genteel world of Baker Street where pompous politicians pontificate and Mycroft implores Sherlock to do his patriotic duty. In fact, the film does contain more social commentary than you would expect in a horror film of the period, with Anthony Quayle’s doctor lamenting that it took a series of grisly murders for authorities to care about the plight of the local women.

Of course, the director never allows the film’s social conscience to get in the way of the revealing outfits. Or the bloody action. In one of the films most imaginatively-staged murders, we see the victim Polly Nicholl’s plunged into a horse-trough, then enveloped in a cloud of blood as she’s stabbed underwater.

tish horror film from the mid-: 1960

And the film failed to perform at the box office.

It’s perhaps not difficult to understand why. To an extent, the film has an issue of falling between two stools. On the one hand, it is a gruesome horror story about Jack the Ripper. But on the other, it’s a story about a gentleman detective. The audience for a film like this is split. Those who enjoy Holmes may be put off by the Ripper. Those who enjoy horror, may find Holmes stuffy.

Or perhaps the audience just couldn’t get past the Rathbone and Bruce movies. The posters commissioned by Tenser tried to update Holmes image – the tag-line calls him “The Original Caped Crusader!” and he’s surrounded by starbursts containing words like “BIFF”, “POW!”, “CRUNCH!” and “AIEEE”.

It really only goes to highlight how out-of-touch with the ultra-campy Man from Uncle, Batman and James Bond world, Sherlock Holmes stories were. It’s a great shame – for while those campy 60’s series have not aged well – “A Study in Terror” really stands up well.

“A Study in Terror” didn’t lose money for Compton, but it wasn’t the breakout hit they had hoped for. The start of a new Sherlock Holmes franchise to rival Hammer’s Dracula and Frankenstein movies. As if that weren’t bad enough, Michael Klinger’s two prestige productions had completely collapsed – Klinger just couldn’t interest the Hollywood backers he needed for his lavish Alice in Wonderland movie – and political instability in the Middle East had spooked investors away from his North African epic, “Beau Brigand”.

ssions” sex comedies of the: 1970

As for Tony, he decided to stick with what he knew best. Films that were easy to market and easy to sell, with great trailers and lurid posters. And if he happened to make art along the way… well, so long as it made money, that was fine with him.

And, as it happened, Tony Tenser was about to make art with the help of a young, tragic genius. A man who promised him a film full of blood, violence and sex… but which also happened to be one of those films that successfully mixed exploitation and art. A film that can stand alongside “The Devils” and “The Wicker Man” as one of the great British horror films. A film that rejuvenated the career of Vincent Price… “The Witchfinder General”.

But the tale of Tony Tenser and Michael Reeves will have to wait until the next episode. I do hope you’ll join us for part 2 of the Tony Tenser story – “The Sorcerer”.

Until then… goodbye.

This episode of The Big Screen Biograph was recorded in Paraparaumu, New Zealand.

This episode was written and presented by Val Thomas. I’d also like to thank John Hamilton for his wonderful book “Beasts in the Cellar” which provided much of the material for this episode.

You can follow us on Twitter and Instagram at Big Biograph, and you can subscribe to this podcast on Apple, Spotify, Google Podcasts and if you subscribe on YouTube, don’t forget to click the bell notification icon for updates.

If you want to drop us a line about stories you liked or stories you’d like to hear, you can email bigscreenbiograph@gmail.com.

But remember, only podcasts with listeners survive! So if you enjoy this show, please help to support us by spreading the word on social media. And please review us on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you source your podcasts.

Thank you for your company. We shall return with more stories for you… very soon.