William Castle — The King of the Gimmick (1975) 🇨🇦
William Castle can be thought of as the King of the Gimmick, for a trick device of some sort was invariably the key to the promotional campaigns for his horror films of the late 1950’s and early 1960’s. There are probably few children of that era who didn’t experience Castle’s buzzing seats during “The Tingler” (1959) or his flying skeletons during “The House on Haunted Hill” (1958).
Interview by: Showbill
It was Adolph Hitler who was responsible for bringing Castle to Hollywood. A week before the opening of the play, “Not for Children”, starring German actress Ellen Schwanneke, no tickets had been sold. Then came an invitation from Hitler to Miss Schwanneke asking her to return to Germany to be his weekend guest at an arts festival. She had no desire to return to Germany so Castle forwarded a cablegram to Hitler saying: “I represent Miss Schwanneke and she wants nothing to do with you or your government”.
Within 24 hours the wire services picked up the story and it became internationally known. Business was brisk for the remainder of the engagement.
Harry Cohn, head of Columbia Pictures, got wind of it, and by 1937, Castle was with Columbia in Hollywood. As a director, Castle’s major contributions in the 1940’s consisted of several installments of The Whistler series and the B classic, “When Strangers Marry” (1944). But it was the horror cycle that established Castle as a major independent producer, with the high point of his career, financially and critically, being “Rosemary’s Baby” (1968). His latest film, “Bug” is now presently in release.
SB: Would you please define the gimmick in relationship to the Cinema?
WC: A piece of “Showmanship” that allows the audience to participate in what is happening on the screen. An audience likes to participate and enjoys feeling that it is part of it all. The gimmick permits that to happen.
SB: What was the first gimmick?
WC: The first gimmick that I am aware of; produced in the film, versus in the theatre, was 3-D. Most people think it was Arch Oberlord who did it but it was Pete Smith in about 1923, or somewhat later. I remembered seeing it when I was a kid and reacting to every visual trick. Of course, you could go back to the ‘silents’, with their special musical sound effects produced by the theatre’s orchestra, but the first gimmick on the screen in my opinion was Peter Smith’s MGM short subject.
SB: What prompted you to use gimmicks?
WC: I was forced to after the failure to produce in my film, “Macabre” the same feeling, in a then very popular French film, “Diabolique”. So I needed something to bring in the audience and with the help of Lloyds of London I came up with the idea that no one can see “Macabre” without an insurance policy. It was impossible to obtain a policy to insure everyone, so Lloyds insured me against any death that may occur from the viewing of my film. The policy was so worded that it appeared that everyone was personally insured. The audiences truly went for it, they could never understand the necessity of an insurance policy before seeing a motion picture. It saved the picture and me, so I have used gimmicks ever since then.
SB: Did you create all your gimmicks?
WC: Yes, always, mind you I am not always aware of where the idea for a gimmick may have come from. Out of the air, out of my nightmares, but I always have ideas. It’s something that you either have or you don’t. And I have ideas. I’m an idea man.
SB: What has the motion picture distributor’s reaction been to your use of gimmicks?
WC: Enthusiastic would not be the right word, they spent a fortune sending work crews to all the theatres to wire them up with the necessary paraphernalia. They spent more money on labour charges then on the production of the film. I don’t feel they would do it today, but again I could be wrong, for look at Universal. I am sure it cost them more than a buck and a half to wire up theatres for “Earthquake”.
SB: Has the public always bought your gimmicks?
WC: Oh, very, very, much so. For a while now I have thought that the gimmick was passé, that the audiences have probably become too sophisticated. But now Universal is getting on the band wagon in a multi-million dollar way. Their gimmicks are much more elaborate and expensive but the proof they worked is surely the ringing we hear from the box office. The pendulum has swung around.
SB: You therefore see a future for the gimmick, but do you see the old gimmicks you used coming back in any way, shape or form?
WC: It’s a very difficult question. I think there’s a lack of showmanship in Hollywood today, that is very apparent. Next to what Mike Todd used to do, and what I did, I really feel there is no showmanship to speak of in Hollywood today. I think it’s an ingredient that is sadly missing from our Motion Picture industry — the fun of exploitation. Every picture’s different and has to be sold on its own merit, but you’ve got to let people know about it. You can’t just let them know about it through newspapers and television and reviews, and I think this has been proven. I do feel, however, that we do have to be more sophisticated on our current level. No, longer can I have the insurance policies, or the seat belts, or the tingler buzzing the seats, but I can have a little more sophisticated gimmick and I have used it. Such as, “Pray for Rosemary’s Baby”, on buttons and streamers, they were magnificent. I didn’t create “Pray for Rosemary’s Baby”. It was done by a young advertising man, but I think that was the most fantastic gimmick on a sophisticated level. You got to have some little hook, whether it’s incense or a flamethrower. But you’ve got to have something.
SB: What is you latest gimmick?
WC: Well, for the Bug, my latest film, I came up with an idea of a windshield wiper type devise that was attached to a number of selected seats, ‘Roach Seats’, so named after the central characters of the film — fire breathing cochroaches. Everytime the roaches appeared these devices would brush up against your leg. We tested it and it worked well, but theatre owners thought it would create a panic so we dropped it. Instead we built more of a terror factor into the film, it works very well and I am proud of it.
—
Photo: Steven Fine
—
“I suppose you could say I’ve devoted my career to scaring the hell out of people.” — William Castle
Collection: Showbill Magazine, September 1975