Once in a while, we are presented with an opportunity to recognize a classic under new context. Despite contemporary movie audiences’ self-ascribed power to define something as an instant classic these days, it can take years for any movie to become one. Often, it is just that, the benefit of viewing something under new context and reflection that allows us to unlock the chiffonier and see a classic for what it is. Admittedly, Willard (1971), directed by Daniel Mann, has been considered a classic to old school horror fans for a long time. But seeing it for probably the third time since it was released half a century ago, has provided the context I needed to realize Willard belongs on the same shelf as films like Rosemary’s Baby (1968), The Exorcist (1973), and possibly, more appropriately, Psycho (1960).
I’m going to offer a few Easter eggs that randomly struck me, the first of which, coincidentally, is the Alfred Hitchcock look-alike who appears in the original Willard. J. Pat O’Malley, known for Disney voice over work, also appears in a plethora of all-American TV series throughout the ’60s, ’70s, and early ’80s. He never particularly looked like Hitchcock, so it seems intentional that he would look like him for his bit part in Willard. Maybe it was his accent. Interestingly, his unclear identity was something of an issue for him when he first arrived in the States early in his career. He went by Pat O’Malley, and only added the first initial to avoid confusion with the already established American actor.
RELATED: Eco-Horror Films: Animals in Revolt!
Continuing with this theme of false recognition, watching Willard, starring Bruce Davison as the titular character, inspired me to immediately rewatch the more recent version, Willard (2003) with Crispin Glover. There’s never an excuse not to gawk at Glover’s brilliant portrayals any chance you get. In this version it seems Ben, the notorious large black rat, has a different role. First, Socrates is the real main rat, and “best friend” in both versions. The albino rodent is not just unlikely, but unnatural as a leader amongst the mischief of rats in Willard’s house. Albino rats would be eaten in the wild. In the ’71 version, Ben is sort of a protector to Socrates. In the ’03 version, Ben’s role calls for him to be jealous of Socrates’ relationship with Willard. This changes the dynamic and plot movement that happens in the office store room scene when Willard’s boss employs brute force to exterminate the vermin invading his space. Ben is not Willard’s best friend. Socrates is. Ben is the catalyst that changes the power dynamic amongst the characters. In the 1971 version, it would be unfair to call Ben the ultimate villain despite his actions. He was angry with Willard for not stepping in when Martin (Ernest Borgnine) kills Socrates. In the 2003 version, Ben didn’t care enough about Socrates to be angry with Willard for his cowardly inaction. It seems more that Ben sees weakness in Willard, and he seizes his opportunity to become the new leader of the rats.
The difference in these character transitions cause the death scene of Mr. Martin (R. Lee Ermey) in the 2003 version to lose its weight. In the latter case, it’s all about Willard’s revenge for his boss ruining his life. In the case of the original, Willard has a human change of heart after he realizes what he’s done. It is this pivotal moment that shows us the difference between man and monster. Willard only wants a quiet life, and he’s “forced” to take action unbecoming of his scruples. Crispin Glover’s version enjoys it all too much. We love him for that because that’s how we ultimately see Willard. He’s an emotionally-stunted loser who has relied on his parents and the station they handed him for his entire life. Glover portrayed him perfectly this way, but Bruce Davison’s portrayal shows us a more complex man. He’s the same emotionally-stunted loser, but when he realizes what he’s done, he shows remorse. It is that very remorse that brings the arc of the story to its frightening end. He’s opened Pandora’s Box and unleashed Ben and his followers into the world. It’s what allows us to accept the sequel, Ben (1972). Given Socrates unsung roles in both pictures, I would welcome a prequel featuring the albino rat. There’s an opportunity there to explain how a small white rat whose vision and olfactory ability can’t compete with an undomesticated rat could lead a swarm of them. He can only be explained as an escaped lab rat. A loose pet store rat wouldn’t have the same effect.
RELATED: Contributions to Horror: Chris Sarandon
Props go to Ben and Socrates’ trainer, Moe Di Sesso. The rats in the original are just as cleverly coordinated and choreographed as in the more recent version. His work with animals can also be seen in The Hills Have Eyes (1977) and The Raven (1963) with Vincent Price. If you’re really in the mood for something scary, see his work with the motley mutt, Sandy, in Annie (1982).
Further props that can’t go unmentioned is the role of Henrietta Stiles, Willard’s mother. The one and only Elsa Lanchester, famously known as The Bride of Frankenstein from 1935, played in more films than I ever realized, and with good reason. She’s not only convincing as Willard’s overbearing helicopter mom, she categorically is the character. She doesn’t depict Henrietta; she becomes her. I don’t doubt for a second that Bruce Davison’s portrayal benefited greatly from Lanchester’s portrayal. His social dysfunction is a direct result of her constant need for Willard to care for her. She denigrates him and emasculates him with scowls and grimaces not provided in the scripted belittlement that Jackie Burroughs benefits from as Mrs. Stiles in the remake. It would be unfair to criticize Burroughs’ own convincing performance, though. She had big slippers to fill.
RELATED: 35 Years Later: ‘The Hitcher’ is Still Malevolent Nightmare Fuel
It’s easy to see director of the remake, Glen Morgan’s love of the original in the overall homage he pays to the classic from the first line. “Willard!” is shouted by different characters in both films during the opening, but you immediately have a sense he constantly puts up with emotional abuse, and the last straw is implied to arrive soon. Later, Crispin Glover looks over family photos after his mother’s death. Bruce Davison appears as Willard’s father in more than one frame. Scenes are often frame-by-frame facsimiles of the original, helping nudge the remake into the same category of greatness. There is a sense of the vintage feel that came out of ’70s horror. The innocuous scores and establishing shots full of sunshine and cozy spaces juxtapose with the underlying creepiness of the stories as they unfold. These classic horror gifts come wrapped under a pretty bow. We only know to expect the macabre from the title tag and once we’ve already committed to tearing off the wrapping.
I recommend watching these back-to-back to see how closely these two films resemble each other, but if there’s only time to watch one, the fifty-year-old classic is close to perfect. I’m already well on my way down the rat hole, and have Ben lined up for a rewatch. After that, I’m hitting the books– Ratman’s Notebooks, written by Stephen Gilbert. The 1968 short novel inspired the original film, and it’s likely mentioned or alluded to in some way in both films.
RELATED: ‘The Hills Have Eyes’ is One of Horror’s Best Remakes