X (THE MAN WITH X-RAY EYES)

US, 1963, 79 minutes, Colour.
Ray Milland, Diane van der Vlis, Harold Stone.
Directed by Roger Corman.

X or The Man with the X-Ray? Eyes is a horror thriller from Roger Corman. Corman began his career in the fifties as a producer and as a director of quickies for American International. With a series of horror thrillers based on Edgar Alan Poe's stories, and generally starring Vincent Price, he came to the attention of critics. During the sixties his output increased in quality although it still bore the marks of his quick techniques.

He collaborated several times with Ray Milland and this is one of those occasions, taking a science fiction plot, a man playing God with chemicals and producing a substance which on the eyes gave x-ray vision and then became a money making gimmick. Corman shows how power corrupts and torments. He caps it with a rather grim literal application of 'if your eye offends you, pluck it out'. It is rather sensational but cleverly made.

1. The significance of the title? 'X' - the unknown, the man with the X-ray eyes?

2. What were audience expectations of this film from its title? What expectations of horror, entertainment, morbid fascination? Why are films like this generally successful? Why
do they appeal to audiences?

3. Comment on the technical success of the film considering its low budget? The style of the film?

4. How well did the film use colour for its theme? For prisms, blinding colour and visions, the editing techniques, the use of colour for atmosphere?

5. How interesting was the plot itself? How well did it involve audiences? As plausible, as thrilling, as horrifying?

6. Why is science-fiction like this so popular? The aspects of science and probing the unknown? The indulgence of fantasy and imagination? The probing of fears and dangers? Did this film do this well?

7. How did the film serve as a moral fable? Man as knowing his place in the world, using his intellect, but not playing God? The vengeful persecution of nature, that nature mocks man, the inevitability of retribution? Was this convincing and moving?

8. The central role of Dr Xavier? How convincing was Ray Milland, the portrayal of his skills as a doctor the drama of the testing of the fluid, the good that he hoped to come from his inventions? His response to the potential evil, his growing ambitions, the obsessions? His high-handed behaviour towards the doctor and his inevitable dismissal? His response to the horror of the eyelids that he could see through? His fleeing society, yet his being exploited? Helping others, yet the greed for the money? What future would he have? Was his death in some way an accident? The melodrama of the plucking out of his eyes? How fitting was a punishment for this for him?

9. How did the film blend comedy, for instance, seeing through people's clothes at the party, contrast with the melodrama of the hospital? incidents and this contrast with Dr Xavier's being helpful to patients and his being exploited? Did this give a complexity to the character and a satisfying exploration of his character?

10. Audience response to Crane and his manipulation of Xavier and exploiting him?

11. The minor characters the assistants, Diane, the antagonism of the doctors, the Las Vegas sequence? What did they add to the film?

12, How well did the film create the atmosphere of the Revival Meeting, the religious experience, the frenzy, the atmosphere for the horror of the ending? The visual impact of the close-up of the eyes?

13. What is the value of such a science fiction film? How well does it illustrate Roger Corman's skill?