X the Unknown

Fresh off the wild success achieved by “The Quatermass Xperiment” (1955), British Hammer Films decided to stick with science fiction, making what was initially conceived to be a sequel to that well-received Val Guest movie, only later to be forced to change course in the face of Nigel Kneale’s categorical refusal to allow the use of his character’s name (the “Quatermass” creator apparently vetoed the project because he was informed of it only after the screenplay had already been completed – by writer Jimmy Sangster). Consequently, the protagonist scientist was forced to change his name (Adam Royston), face (actor Dean Jagger), and even his personality (definitely more even-tempered and less bossy than the irascible Bernard Quatermass, who will return only with the upcoming “Quatermass II“, 1957).

Despite suffering from behind-the-scenes tribulations involving its direction, which passed from the blacklisted Joseph Losey to the ho-hum Leslie Norman, “X the Unknown” remains a noteworthy work overall, in that it places intelligent dialogue and the exploration of stimulating concepts ahead of mere showmanship and spectacle. One of the most interesting themes is the application of Darwinian theory to an entity that, although lacking traditional biological characteristics (“This isn’t a living organism, as we know it. Its life source may be the same [radiation] as we’ve got here“), appears subject to the same dynamics outlined in the principles of modern evolutionary theories.

From a figurative point of view, what comes across is a certain taste for the macabre (bodies liquified, faces stripped of flesh, children fatally burned), an early indication of the path the British production company would soon embark upon, the same path that would lead Hammer to excel in the realm of pure horror a few years down the road.

Highlights: 1) the blob breaking through the cemetery wall as the little girl watches, captivated; 2) the surprising epilogue which leaves us with a note of uncertainty and the sinking feeling that something’s still amiss despite humanity’s apparent triumph (a revealing warning that science is still far from understanding and coping with the complexity of natural phenomena).