Warning: May contain spoilers.

It's the fourth weekend of the month and so time for another Book-To-Movie review! In a Book-To-Movie, we review a work of prose fiction and its movie adaptation. Last Wednesday, January 19th, was the 213th birthday of Edgar Allan Poe, and so I have another review of one of his stories and its cinematic adaptation. And yes, the movie is another one from American International Pictures' (AIP) series of Vincent Price-Edgar Allan Poe movies. Am I too addicted to films based on Poe’s work and starring Vincent Price? Maybe, but that’s not the reason why I chose this version. The reason I chose it was because it’s the only one I know of that exists. As we've seen in past Book-To-Movies, AIP's Poe film adaptations mostly stay faithful to the original work even though, naturally, the story is expanded in order to fit an hour-and-a-half-long film. Well, that’s hardly the case with 1969’s "The Oblong Box". Yet, although there were several differences between the plot of this film, and that of Poe's short story of the same name, it actually isn't a bad movie.

The Short Story

Poe's "The Oblong Box", involves a young artist by the name of Cornelius Wyatt, who travels by ship with his family. The narrator, who is friends with Wyatt, and is not named as with nearly all the point-of-view characters in Poe’s stories, happens to also be travelling on the same ship with them. During the voyage, the narrator is very curious about a coffin-sized crate his friend has brought on board. He tries asking questions about the mysterious box without being obvious but Wyatt won't tell anyone what’s inside. Wyatt is so possessive of the crate, that after he and the other passengers and crew escape in a boat from the ship when it begins sinking during a storm, he swims back to it in an attempt to rescue the box. Later, after everyone is on land and have returned to their normal lives, the narrator learns from the captain that a switching of bodies had occurred in connection with the box. 

This story contains many of the themes and elements seen in many of Poe's stories. There's a theme of a man's passion over a dead lover and there's intentional ambiguity that makes the story more interpretive. Also like many of Poe’s stories, there's a haunting of an ending. In this tale the ending is made ambiguous to where a reader may question if this is really one of the author’s ghost stories. It's a good tale filled with suspense and irony and it makes the reader want to keep reading to find out what’s inside the oblong box. 

The Movie

The biggest difference between the movie of “The Oblong Box”, directed by Gordon Hessler, and Poe’s short story that it’s based on is the plot itself. The story to the movie is an aristocrat, by the name of Julian Markham (Vincent Price), keeps his brother Sir Edward (Alister Williamson) locked up in a chamber in their home due to Edward’s insanity that results from a traumatic experience he had with a Voodoo sect in Africa. A magician in the sect has put a curse on him and disfigured his face. He escapes from his and his brother’s estate through a faked death involving a switching of bodies. This is as close as the movie gets to the original story and does include an oblong box, of course (Sir Edward’s coffin). However, within this aspect, the details vary greatly from the situation with the box in the short story. After Sir Edward is dug up by grave robbers sent by a doctor (Christopher Lee), he wanders about the town wearing a crimson mask and murdering people out of revenge. 

Regardless of the unfaithfulness to the original story, AIP's "Oblong Box" was an okay film. The acting was good, especially on Price and Lee's parts. There were good action and fight scenes. There was also plenty of blackmail between the characters which heightened the suspense and tension. The epiphanies, the timing of revealing important details, were built up to well. The mystery behind the oblong box itself is removed and, instead, given to the crimson mask that Edward wears. However, in a similar way that the box in the short story makes the reader want to continue reading, the mystery of the mask makes the viewer want to continue watching the movie to see how repulsive Edward’s face is.

One point that I thought was done really well was one that breaks an age-old trope in horror films. When a young female character unexpectedly comes across the masked Edward for the first time, she’s not frightened by him. In fact, she even has an attraction to him. This doesn’t only break a very old trope but also breaks, even if at a minor level, a female stereotype.

Besides its diversion from the original plot, the other problem I had with the film was that when Edward's face is finally revealed it isn't as ghastly or repulsive as a viewer would expect in a horror film. It doesn't match up to the unmasking in the 1920s “Phantom of the Opera”, that's for sure. 

Because the plot to Poe's short story, "The Oblong Box", and the one to the AIP movie adaptation differ so much, the short story and movie are almost two totally different things. Like with the 1992 movie adaptation to Stephen King's "The Lawnmower Man", this movie is its own story simply with the original work’s title slapped onto it. It doesn't even have a quote from the short story tagged on at the end like most of Vincent Price’s Edgar Allan Poe movies have. But because it basically has its own clever story and other qualities, it’s a good film in its own right. But it’s really not Poe’s "The Oblong Box". Because of that, I can't even say whether I liked the short story or movie better since. As a movie adaptation of the short story, I didn't like it and don’t think it’s that good. As its own movie with its own storyline, I enjoyed it and would say it’s at least an okay film. 

Look out for the first edition of "Night Creatures' Call", my author newsletter, of the year. It should be out within the next week. If you haven't done so yet, you can subscribe to it here. If you do you'll receive a free book!

Have you read Poe's "The Oblong Box" or seen the 1969 movie adaptation? 

Until next time . . .