So, the other night I was watching This Is Cinerama. There's a lot to talk about when it comes to the film itself but right now I want to spend a bit of time on one of the special features included with this film: The Breakdown Reel.
The Breakdown Reel is essentially five minutes of filler meant to be projected during a technical difficulty. Given the complexity of Cinerama (three projections on a curved screen with seven channels of sound) there was a real possibility of a breakdown. Or a reel possibility.
One of the investors behind Cinerama was Lowell Thomas. (Another was Merian C. Cooper, the director of King Kong.)
If you've ever seen Lawrence of Arabia then you'll remember the squirrely American reporter who shows up to publicize Lawrence in order to whip up war excitement back in the U.S. (and presumably make a quick buck.) That reporter was based on Lowell Thomas (1892-1981), who made his name following Lawrence and General Allenby in the Palestine Campaign in the First World War. After the war, Thomas made a name for himself (and quite a few bucks, slow and fast) traveling around the world and presenting a slide show and film about Lawrence.
Thirty years later Lowell Thomas was one of those famous voices and not only was he a prime investor in Cinerama, he was also the narrator for This Is Cinerama. And that brings us back to the Breakdown Reel.
It begins innocuously enough. Thomas describes why sometimes things go wrong with projecting a film, talks about the amazing sound and talks a little about the very highly regarded members of the orchestra for the film. He periodically stops to announce that it looks like they're ready to begin again and then says that it looks like they're not ready yet so he's going to tell some more stories.
And this is when it gets...interesting. Because Lowell Thomas shares two stories about presenting his Lawrence film in the 1920s. In the first anecdote he talks about presenting his film in the capital of Sri Lanka, Colombo. Apparently the venue had an open courtyard and there were coconut trees nearby. And monkeys. The monkeys pelted the audience with coconuts. It was "very embarrassing for me and also embarrassing for the audience." The monkeys were not embarrassed, because they were monkeys.
The second anecdote though, is a doozy. He was in Bombay for a chunk of time showing his film.
"It was the year that Gandhi started his famous non-cooperation movement and his followers were [slight pause] full of life and wanting to start trouble anywhere and I was telling the story of Allenby and Lawrence at the Royal Opera House in Bombay for several weeks and Gandhi's followers in their little white Gandhi caps used to come each night and the would scatter about in the audience and then they would create disturbances. The English superintendent of police in Bombay decided to do something about it. So he scattered his policemen throughout my audiences and whenever a Gandhi-ite would create a disturbance up would get a policeman nearby and start a real ruckus with him. Can you imagine what a problem it would be for anyone trying to tell a tale standing on a stage under those circumstances? Well, you have all sorts of weird experiences when you're presenting a film. And now, back to our Cinerama adventure."
Wow.
Let's unpack this story a little bit because it is of great relevance to us today.
Lowell Thomas is telling this story in 1952. It is 4 years after Gandhi was assassinated and 5 years after India's independence. The story he's telling was from thirty years in the past at that point.
First, look at what he refers to Gandhi's movement as. "Non-cooperation." I want you to think about that. What weren't they cooperating with? Imperialism? Occupation? Oppression?
Non-cooperation. These days we are shown Gandhi as a paragon of non-violence and we are expected to uphold some mythical standard of pacifism in the face of whatever is being shoved down our gullets because "Gandhi was non-violent" but look carefully at this account and the terminology being used. "Non-cooperation."
Now look at that pause. It is a brief second. But you can see Lowell Thomas struggling to avoid saying something really horrible. Seriously. He comes up with "full of life" but you can see him wanting to say something entirely different and then restraining himself. But you get the gist of what he meant to say when he goes on to say that the Indians were looking to "start trouble anywhere."
Does that kind of rhetoric sound familiar?
Have you been told to be more civil lately?
Have you been told to be more civil because it's what Gandhi would have done?
This is what people who were around when Gandhi was an activist had to say about his movement.
They were troublemakers. They were "creating disturbances."
I could talk more about the way he refers to the protestors as "Gandhi-ites" and the obviously dismissive nature of the phrase "little white Gandhi caps." I mean, if you just want to show people a textbook example of slightly genteel racism, well...here it is.
And then notice Lowell Thomas's obvious pleasure when the British police decide to "do something about it." He chooses his words carefully when he says that the police "start a real ruckus" with Gandhi's protestors but even in euphemism the point is clear. Go back and watch Richard Attenborough's Gandhi (1982) which is, after all, relatively sanitized and imagine what kind of "ruckus" Lowell Thomas is imagining the British police starting with these Indian protestors and activists. Is it the ruckus where people are merely clubbed in the head or is it the ruckus where people are shot and killed.
Now let's come back to present day. We are told that Gandhi was a paradigm of non-violence and we should comport ourselves like Gandhi when we protest injustice. We are told this by the inheritors of Lowell Thomas's mantle. We are told to be civil...like Gandhi. But here's a time machine hidden in the special features of a 2018 release of a 1952 film to remind us that the much vaunted civility which we are expected to maintain is the same as the "cooperation" which the oppressors of the past expected from the people they were oppressing.
British cops starting a real ruckus. Very droll, Mr. Thomas.
Again, this is 1952. This is the much vaunted civility of the past. Little white caps. Ruckuses. Non-cooperation. I wonder if anyone bothered actually listening to the story on this breakdown reel.
Well, I did. I'm glad I did.
And that last bit of serious narcissism where Lowell Thomas asks for our empathy in imagining how hard it was for him to give a talk while people where being clubbed by cops in the audience.
It must have been so difficult for him.
But he managed to make it. Lowell Thomas endured his troubles, whether it was coconuts or ruckuses.
And think again for a second about how he had two stories of tribulation in the subcontinent and how one of those stories was about wayward monkeys and the other was...SERIOUSLY?
I feel like I just got hit in the face with a baseball bat that has "symbolism" scratched into it.
What are you laughing at, Lowell Thomas? The only way anyone would see you recounting these "hilarious" stories would be if your rotten Cinerama system broke down.
So laugh it up.
Now, just hold that smile a second, Lowell Thomas. Let me take your rotten bloody picture for the rotten bloody newspapers.
Saturday, December 29, 2018
Sunday, March 23, 2014
The Ladyfriends of Count Dracula
Brides of Dracula (1960)
Directed by Terence Fisher
Screenplay by Jimmy Sangster, Peter Bryan & Edward Percy
aka The Brides of Dracula
First of all, the title never promises you Dracula, so you can quit complaining that Dracula is only very tenuously connected with this film. The film's title isn't Count Dracula and his Lady People, the title is Brides of Dracula (or The Brides of Dracula). Of course, none of the characters in this movie are in fact brides of Dracula. They might qualify as brides of a vampire (depending on your definition of vampire marriage) but that vampire is definitely not Dracula. So you can complain about that, if you're already looking for something to complain about.
If you're not already looking for something to complain about then here are some fandom reasons to enjoy the film.
1. Peter Cushing as Van Helsing. Do I need to say more? At the risk of turning this into the Peter Cushing Posthumous Fan Club I will state that Peter Cushing was a towering figure of 20th century cinema so any chance you get to see Grand Moff Tarkin at work is time well spent. This may not be Peter Cushing's best work, but he does make a good Van Helsing.
2. Miles Malleson's comic relief. Malleson provided some charm for Hammer's Hound of the Baskervilles, but he just about steals the show as the useless doctor in this film.
3. Michael Ripper. This one is for the Hammer Rep Company home game. It's not a major role, but it's a little reassuring to see the chipper face of Michael Ripper.
Brides of Dracula is a film about the asymmetric threats to the post-World War II order. Really? Did I just say that? Sure. The film is set in the late 19th century but it's still a 1960 film. Because it's not a film with a direct allegory to its contemporary history its easy to dismiss it as a cultural indicator of historical anxieties, but consider the opening narration:
Dracula, monarch of all vampires is dead. But his disciples live on to spread the cult and corrupt the world...
Now, it's easy enough to figure out that in a 1960 context the dead Dracula is the dead Nazi behemoth. But the anxiety of 1960 as represented in this film isn't about some Boys from Brazil fear of a secret Nazi movement, it's about evil/violence writ large. The dead Dracula represents a Pandora's box of the evils of violence and war. And in that regard the allegory is much more clear. Dracula wasn't the source of evil any more than Hitler was the source of all evil. In both cases they represent symptoms of the violence of mankind. As such, you can kill the granddaddy of vampires and that doesn't mean that all vampirism has been wiped out any more than you can kill one murderer and wipe out all murder. It is a condition that continues. Now, this theory is bogged down by the notion of "cult" introduced by the narration but the plot of the film sort of doesn't fit the idea of singular evil cult. It's almost like that word belongs more to the 1963 Kiss of the Vampire which IS about a vampire cult. Here, we're not even sure the lead vampire was in any way connected to Dracula other than by living in the general neighborhood of Transylvania. My point is that this is a film that plays on the anxiety that victory in one war is no guarantee of victory over the idea of war.
Brides of Dracula is a film about the exotic darkness of Eastern Europe. In that regard the film is merely a continuation of Bram Stoker's project which is in some ways a longer term project of exoticism of the other to begin with. Is this related to some sort of tangential orientalism? Or is it more like that aspect of dark romanticism that views the wild woods as a dark otherworld? Folks have long noted the trope of the dark forest and in films such as this Transylvania is just shorthand for that kind of thought. It seems almost funny in a way that if you actually combine this film with the original Hammer Dracula in a continuum then you have to imagine a Transylvania where every castle is a nest of vampires. (Throw Kiss of the Vampire into this mix and this becomes almost ridiculous.) There is an aspect to this that I will come to in a moment. But this is definitely a film that starts off with a Little French Riding Hood marching into the big bad forest and putting herself in danger.
Brides of Dracula is about the dangers of letting people (well, not people generally, but women specifically) loose into the "big bad forest" of unregulated society. At first it looks like this film will be slightly progressive since the main character is Marianne, a single French teacher who comes by herself to take up a teaching position in Transylvania at a private school run by Herr Lang and his Frau. It is a girls school and in a film with the title of this film it's not hard to see where this might be heading. It doesn't actually go there, which is either an act of restraint or a lack of imagination. At any rate, the Lang school is a mechanism that allows society to reinforce its norms, especially in terms of gender and sexuality though the project no doubt extends to all aspects of society and not just the hottest of the hot buttons as it were. Marianne is a typical Pandora or Eve in the sense that her curiosity gets her into trouble in releasing the vampire Baron Meinster. But it is also the case that it is the result of her good qualities that she releases this evil. The Baron plays on her sympathy and trusting nature. Marianne's kindness unleashes (literally unchains) the vampire. The fact that the vampire is a handsome young man only makes the job easier because Marianne can't say no to that.
Of course it isn't just plain curiosity which is dangerous because ultimately vampirism is about sexuality. Would Marianne's interest in the imprisoned Baron Meinster be the same if he wasn't sexually attractive to her? We can't know that, but what we do know is that despite what she's been through earlier Marianne immediately accepts the Baron's offer of marriage. But if you're looking for vampirism as a metaphor for sexuality in this film then you need only look at Marianne's friend and coworker Gina. (Wipe that smirk off your face now.) Gina is a little jealous of Marianne's good luck in landing herself a handsome aristocrat, though it is certainly good natured joking. Now, when the Baron shows up and drains Gina's blood you can't deny the sexualization of the vampirism because Gina herself expresses the event in those terms later when she gets out of her coffin and chats with Marianne. Gina even asks Marianne for forgiveness for "letting him love me." Ultimately, the lesson here is that your attractive friend will always try to have sex with your vampire fiance and your vampire fiance will always go looking for a bit of action on the side.
Speaking of love, I am really curious about the Baron's servant Greta who basically raised him. She seems to protect the Baron in a very maternal fashion, but on the other hand she forces Marianne to look at the Baroness's body in the aftermath of the Baron's escape. Is it because the Baron's escape has made it more difficult for Greta to protect him? Or is Greta jealous of the young woman's possibly sexual relationship with the Baron?
The Baroness is a bit of a red herring because it looks at first as though she might be a villain and that her invitation to Marianne to spend the night is a trap. Now, there are two strains of thought here. One is that the Baroness is just a lonely old woman and that even a moment of company with a passing stranger (and an educated one, at that) will be a treat for her. There's another darker idea that's hinted at, and that's that the Baroness and Greta kidnap the occasional passing stranger and feed them to the Baron. Van Helsing's scene with the Baroness is one of the highlights of the film and her death is a genuine moment of pathos (she's a perfect example of a reluctant vampire) and allows Van Helsing a moment of kindness with his mercy killing.
I haven't even mentioned Van Helsing yet, who is once again a representative of that strange mixture of science and faith that marks the occult science. He is contrasted with the quack Doctor Tobler who is not only a serious mercenary but also a terrible hypochondriac. So much for the medical science.
Brides of Dracula is also about class. In case you've missed most of the history of classic vampire stories notice that the vampire Baron Meinster is an aristocrat. It's not a coincidence. It's not exactly a heavily Marxist critique (especially given that it's not a hammer and sickle that kills the vampire--though both are useful in that regard) but the fact that a bloodsucking monster is already a member of an upper class that derives its wealth from the labor of others is--well, it's not exactly a tightly veiled metaphor. In this film the Baron plays on his aristocratic legitimacy to get Marianne to release him, thus he uses a classic story of aristocratic intrigue and usurpation to make others do his dirty work and get him out of his prison. The loyalty of Greta to the Baron is mostly maternal, but her duty to the Baroness is definitely a matter of her station. The reaction of the Langs to finding out that their new employee is marrying their aristocratic landlord is a priceless example of class pretensions. Herr Lang is a staunch imposer of the social order in terms of his authority in the middle class and as the head of his own business (the school) he demands obedience to his rules from his teachers. But when the Baron reveals his identity suddenly Herr Lang is a subservient bootlicker.
Meanwhile the Baron feeds on the lower classes, mostly women. The "Village Girl" doesn't even rate a name and she and Gina (along with the non-vampire Marianne) are the titular brides. (Brides of Meinster was not a catchy title.) The Baron menaces the countryside and once loose is likely to literally bleed the region dry. It's not exactly a flattering portrayal of the upper classes.
The gender issue of the film is ultimately a disappointment. The female vampires are relatively ineffective and don't prove to be all that interesting. There is a hint of the transgressive in terms of Gina's relation to Marianne once Gina has been turned, but nothing goes that far and as such it proves to be an untapped potential. This is the sort of restraint that made things like The Hunger go so far in the opposite direction later.
It is ultimately up to the man to rescue the one pure damsel in distress in this film. (The other damsels in distress are "released" from the burden of being undead (and thus, impure.)
Van Helsing is definitely a hero up to the task (though he is a hero of metis and cunning more than brawn and physical skill.) The greatest moment in the science of vampirism is when Van Helsing wakes up from being bitten by the Baron and cauterises his wound with a hot iron and then pours holy water on it thus rendering null and void the vampire's bite. The question is, if this process works how much time one has before the vampirism kicks in and if there is a sufficient lag why this isn't a more viable option when dealing with vampire victims.
Greta sacrifices herself trying to keep Van Helsing away from the Baron. She succeeds in making his task more difficult for him by knocking out his cross and it provides us with a great moment in vampire minion fighting because as a non-vampire she has only the rules of physics and biology to keep her from attacking Van Helsing. Ultimately, she is the only minion of the vampire who is not mesmerized into doing his bidding and thus nothing can break her "spell."
The ending with the giant cross formed by the shadow of the windmill is both grand and at the same time utterly ridiculous. In terms of vampire lore it creates and almost too easy standard of keeping vampires at bay. (Think of all the window frames that are made up of a bunch of crosses, or the shadow of any two crossing items in a bedroom visited by a vampire.) It's both ingenious and utterly ridiculous.
So what's the lesson here? Don't take a teaching job in Transylvania. People kept prisoner are probably being kept prisoner for a good reason so don't let your essential kindness fool you into letting them out. The job of hunting evil is never really over because the castles of the aristocracy are full of bloodsucking monsters and some of them are even vampires. Yeah, that about sums it up.
Judged in terms of the totality of the Hammer oeuvre, this film is middle of the pack. It isn't truly awful by a long shot (certainly isn't unwatchable) but it's also not exactly a must see or a revolutionary adventure in filmmaking. It's a damn sight better than a lot of non-Hammer vampire films circa 2014 (and the vampires never sparkle, you silly fools) and the visual style that continues from the first wave of the Hammer horror films is still in its classic period here. The pacing is nice and slow in the beginning so that before you know it the film is over. (This is one of the stranger effects of these films--that the early parts of it seem to be paced like a Merchant Ivory character study and then if you watch the clock you suddenly realize that there are only 20 minutes left for this film to wrap things up.) In terms of the Hammer Horror collection this film is contained in, it's a perfect starting feature with Cushing as Van Helsing and Terence Fisher's directing to firmly ground things in the most familiar and well-known of the Hammer styles.
I keep vacillating in how I feel about Brides of Dracula. It's like the middle chapter of a book that doesn't really advance the plot and is very similar to the chapter before it and the one after it but you don't quite feel like removing it because you still like the book as a whole and you don't want it to be shorter. So basically, if you're working on a classic vampire binge or working through the Hammer films or any form of comprehensive fan exercise (all the films of Yvonne Monlaur) then this is a good entry. But on its own there's very little that would commend it as being the only movie of its kind that you'd want to see. As such, again, it is to the benefit of the film itself and to any potential audience that it is included in a collection as opposed to standing alone where it might be completely lost.
Time for the next up in The Hammer Horror Series: The Franchise Collection
Draculis personae
Dr. J. Van Helsing..........Peter Cushing
Marianne Danielle.........Yvonne Monlaur
Baroness Meinster.........Martita Hunt
Baron Meinster..............David Peel
Greta..............................Freda Jackson
Dr. Tobler.......................Miles Malleson
Herr Otto Lang...............Henry Oscar
Frau Helga Lang.............Mona Washbourne
Gina................................Andree Melly
Hans, a Villager..............Victor Brooks
Father Stepnik................Fred Johnson
Coachman.......................Michael Ripper
Johan, the Landlord........Norman Pierce
Landlord's Wife..............Vera Cook
Village Girl.....................Marie Devereux
Elsa, School Maid...........Susan Castle
Latour, The Man in Black......Michael Mulcaster
Karl.................................Harry Pringle
Severine..........................Harold Scott
Foxy Girl........................Stephanie Watts
Cinematography by Jack Asher
Music by Malcolm Williamson
86 min
1.66:1 Anamorphic Widescreen
Color
English
Dubbed in Spanish
Subtitles: English, Spanish, French
Directed by Terence Fisher
Screenplay by Jimmy Sangster, Peter Bryan & Edward Percy
aka The Brides of Dracula
First of all, the title never promises you Dracula, so you can quit complaining that Dracula is only very tenuously connected with this film. The film's title isn't Count Dracula and his Lady People, the title is Brides of Dracula (or The Brides of Dracula). Of course, none of the characters in this movie are in fact brides of Dracula. They might qualify as brides of a vampire (depending on your definition of vampire marriage) but that vampire is definitely not Dracula. So you can complain about that, if you're already looking for something to complain about.
If you're not already looking for something to complain about then here are some fandom reasons to enjoy the film.
1. Peter Cushing as Van Helsing. Do I need to say more? At the risk of turning this into the Peter Cushing Posthumous Fan Club I will state that Peter Cushing was a towering figure of 20th century cinema so any chance you get to see Grand Moff Tarkin at work is time well spent. This may not be Peter Cushing's best work, but he does make a good Van Helsing.
2. Miles Malleson's comic relief. Malleson provided some charm for Hammer's Hound of the Baskervilles, but he just about steals the show as the useless doctor in this film.
3. Michael Ripper. This one is for the Hammer Rep Company home game. It's not a major role, but it's a little reassuring to see the chipper face of Michael Ripper.
Brides of Dracula is a film about the asymmetric threats to the post-World War II order. Really? Did I just say that? Sure. The film is set in the late 19th century but it's still a 1960 film. Because it's not a film with a direct allegory to its contemporary history its easy to dismiss it as a cultural indicator of historical anxieties, but consider the opening narration:
Dracula, monarch of all vampires is dead. But his disciples live on to spread the cult and corrupt the world...
Now, it's easy enough to figure out that in a 1960 context the dead Dracula is the dead Nazi behemoth. But the anxiety of 1960 as represented in this film isn't about some Boys from Brazil fear of a secret Nazi movement, it's about evil/violence writ large. The dead Dracula represents a Pandora's box of the evils of violence and war. And in that regard the allegory is much more clear. Dracula wasn't the source of evil any more than Hitler was the source of all evil. In both cases they represent symptoms of the violence of mankind. As such, you can kill the granddaddy of vampires and that doesn't mean that all vampirism has been wiped out any more than you can kill one murderer and wipe out all murder. It is a condition that continues. Now, this theory is bogged down by the notion of "cult" introduced by the narration but the plot of the film sort of doesn't fit the idea of singular evil cult. It's almost like that word belongs more to the 1963 Kiss of the Vampire which IS about a vampire cult. Here, we're not even sure the lead vampire was in any way connected to Dracula other than by living in the general neighborhood of Transylvania. My point is that this is a film that plays on the anxiety that victory in one war is no guarantee of victory over the idea of war.
Brides of Dracula is a film about the exotic darkness of Eastern Europe. In that regard the film is merely a continuation of Bram Stoker's project which is in some ways a longer term project of exoticism of the other to begin with. Is this related to some sort of tangential orientalism? Or is it more like that aspect of dark romanticism that views the wild woods as a dark otherworld? Folks have long noted the trope of the dark forest and in films such as this Transylvania is just shorthand for that kind of thought. It seems almost funny in a way that if you actually combine this film with the original Hammer Dracula in a continuum then you have to imagine a Transylvania where every castle is a nest of vampires. (Throw Kiss of the Vampire into this mix and this becomes almost ridiculous.) There is an aspect to this that I will come to in a moment. But this is definitely a film that starts off with a Little French Riding Hood marching into the big bad forest and putting herself in danger.
Brides of Dracula is about the dangers of letting people (well, not people generally, but women specifically) loose into the "big bad forest" of unregulated society. At first it looks like this film will be slightly progressive since the main character is Marianne, a single French teacher who comes by herself to take up a teaching position in Transylvania at a private school run by Herr Lang and his Frau. It is a girls school and in a film with the title of this film it's not hard to see where this might be heading. It doesn't actually go there, which is either an act of restraint or a lack of imagination. At any rate, the Lang school is a mechanism that allows society to reinforce its norms, especially in terms of gender and sexuality though the project no doubt extends to all aspects of society and not just the hottest of the hot buttons as it were. Marianne is a typical Pandora or Eve in the sense that her curiosity gets her into trouble in releasing the vampire Baron Meinster. But it is also the case that it is the result of her good qualities that she releases this evil. The Baron plays on her sympathy and trusting nature. Marianne's kindness unleashes (literally unchains) the vampire. The fact that the vampire is a handsome young man only makes the job easier because Marianne can't say no to that.
Of course it isn't just plain curiosity which is dangerous because ultimately vampirism is about sexuality. Would Marianne's interest in the imprisoned Baron Meinster be the same if he wasn't sexually attractive to her? We can't know that, but what we do know is that despite what she's been through earlier Marianne immediately accepts the Baron's offer of marriage. But if you're looking for vampirism as a metaphor for sexuality in this film then you need only look at Marianne's friend and coworker Gina. (Wipe that smirk off your face now.) Gina is a little jealous of Marianne's good luck in landing herself a handsome aristocrat, though it is certainly good natured joking. Now, when the Baron shows up and drains Gina's blood you can't deny the sexualization of the vampirism because Gina herself expresses the event in those terms later when she gets out of her coffin and chats with Marianne. Gina even asks Marianne for forgiveness for "letting him love me." Ultimately, the lesson here is that your attractive friend will always try to have sex with your vampire fiance and your vampire fiance will always go looking for a bit of action on the side.
Speaking of love, I am really curious about the Baron's servant Greta who basically raised him. She seems to protect the Baron in a very maternal fashion, but on the other hand she forces Marianne to look at the Baroness's body in the aftermath of the Baron's escape. Is it because the Baron's escape has made it more difficult for Greta to protect him? Or is Greta jealous of the young woman's possibly sexual relationship with the Baron?
The Baroness is a bit of a red herring because it looks at first as though she might be a villain and that her invitation to Marianne to spend the night is a trap. Now, there are two strains of thought here. One is that the Baroness is just a lonely old woman and that even a moment of company with a passing stranger (and an educated one, at that) will be a treat for her. There's another darker idea that's hinted at, and that's that the Baroness and Greta kidnap the occasional passing stranger and feed them to the Baron. Van Helsing's scene with the Baroness is one of the highlights of the film and her death is a genuine moment of pathos (she's a perfect example of a reluctant vampire) and allows Van Helsing a moment of kindness with his mercy killing.
I haven't even mentioned Van Helsing yet, who is once again a representative of that strange mixture of science and faith that marks the occult science. He is contrasted with the quack Doctor Tobler who is not only a serious mercenary but also a terrible hypochondriac. So much for the medical science.
Brides of Dracula is also about class. In case you've missed most of the history of classic vampire stories notice that the vampire Baron Meinster is an aristocrat. It's not a coincidence. It's not exactly a heavily Marxist critique (especially given that it's not a hammer and sickle that kills the vampire--though both are useful in that regard) but the fact that a bloodsucking monster is already a member of an upper class that derives its wealth from the labor of others is--well, it's not exactly a tightly veiled metaphor. In this film the Baron plays on his aristocratic legitimacy to get Marianne to release him, thus he uses a classic story of aristocratic intrigue and usurpation to make others do his dirty work and get him out of his prison. The loyalty of Greta to the Baron is mostly maternal, but her duty to the Baroness is definitely a matter of her station. The reaction of the Langs to finding out that their new employee is marrying their aristocratic landlord is a priceless example of class pretensions. Herr Lang is a staunch imposer of the social order in terms of his authority in the middle class and as the head of his own business (the school) he demands obedience to his rules from his teachers. But when the Baron reveals his identity suddenly Herr Lang is a subservient bootlicker.
Meanwhile the Baron feeds on the lower classes, mostly women. The "Village Girl" doesn't even rate a name and she and Gina (along with the non-vampire Marianne) are the titular brides. (Brides of Meinster was not a catchy title.) The Baron menaces the countryside and once loose is likely to literally bleed the region dry. It's not exactly a flattering portrayal of the upper classes.
The gender issue of the film is ultimately a disappointment. The female vampires are relatively ineffective and don't prove to be all that interesting. There is a hint of the transgressive in terms of Gina's relation to Marianne once Gina has been turned, but nothing goes that far and as such it proves to be an untapped potential. This is the sort of restraint that made things like The Hunger go so far in the opposite direction later.
It is ultimately up to the man to rescue the one pure damsel in distress in this film. (The other damsels in distress are "released" from the burden of being undead (and thus, impure.)
Van Helsing is definitely a hero up to the task (though he is a hero of metis and cunning more than brawn and physical skill.) The greatest moment in the science of vampirism is when Van Helsing wakes up from being bitten by the Baron and cauterises his wound with a hot iron and then pours holy water on it thus rendering null and void the vampire's bite. The question is, if this process works how much time one has before the vampirism kicks in and if there is a sufficient lag why this isn't a more viable option when dealing with vampire victims.
Greta sacrifices herself trying to keep Van Helsing away from the Baron. She succeeds in making his task more difficult for him by knocking out his cross and it provides us with a great moment in vampire minion fighting because as a non-vampire she has only the rules of physics and biology to keep her from attacking Van Helsing. Ultimately, she is the only minion of the vampire who is not mesmerized into doing his bidding and thus nothing can break her "spell."
The ending with the giant cross formed by the shadow of the windmill is both grand and at the same time utterly ridiculous. In terms of vampire lore it creates and almost too easy standard of keeping vampires at bay. (Think of all the window frames that are made up of a bunch of crosses, or the shadow of any two crossing items in a bedroom visited by a vampire.) It's both ingenious and utterly ridiculous.
So what's the lesson here? Don't take a teaching job in Transylvania. People kept prisoner are probably being kept prisoner for a good reason so don't let your essential kindness fool you into letting them out. The job of hunting evil is never really over because the castles of the aristocracy are full of bloodsucking monsters and some of them are even vampires. Yeah, that about sums it up.
Judged in terms of the totality of the Hammer oeuvre, this film is middle of the pack. It isn't truly awful by a long shot (certainly isn't unwatchable) but it's also not exactly a must see or a revolutionary adventure in filmmaking. It's a damn sight better than a lot of non-Hammer vampire films circa 2014 (and the vampires never sparkle, you silly fools) and the visual style that continues from the first wave of the Hammer horror films is still in its classic period here. The pacing is nice and slow in the beginning so that before you know it the film is over. (This is one of the stranger effects of these films--that the early parts of it seem to be paced like a Merchant Ivory character study and then if you watch the clock you suddenly realize that there are only 20 minutes left for this film to wrap things up.) In terms of the Hammer Horror collection this film is contained in, it's a perfect starting feature with Cushing as Van Helsing and Terence Fisher's directing to firmly ground things in the most familiar and well-known of the Hammer styles.
I keep vacillating in how I feel about Brides of Dracula. It's like the middle chapter of a book that doesn't really advance the plot and is very similar to the chapter before it and the one after it but you don't quite feel like removing it because you still like the book as a whole and you don't want it to be shorter. So basically, if you're working on a classic vampire binge or working through the Hammer films or any form of comprehensive fan exercise (all the films of Yvonne Monlaur) then this is a good entry. But on its own there's very little that would commend it as being the only movie of its kind that you'd want to see. As such, again, it is to the benefit of the film itself and to any potential audience that it is included in a collection as opposed to standing alone where it might be completely lost.
Time for the next up in The Hammer Horror Series: The Franchise Collection
Draculis personae
Dr. J. Van Helsing..........Peter Cushing
Marianne Danielle.........Yvonne Monlaur
Baroness Meinster.........Martita Hunt
Baron Meinster..............David Peel
Greta..............................Freda Jackson
Dr. Tobler.......................Miles Malleson
Herr Otto Lang...............Henry Oscar
Frau Helga Lang.............Mona Washbourne
Gina................................Andree Melly
Hans, a Villager..............Victor Brooks
Father Stepnik................Fred Johnson
Coachman.......................Michael Ripper
Johan, the Landlord........Norman Pierce
Landlord's Wife..............Vera Cook
Village Girl.....................Marie Devereux
Elsa, School Maid...........Susan Castle
Latour, The Man in Black......Michael Mulcaster
Karl.................................Harry Pringle
Severine..........................Harold Scott
Foxy Girl........................Stephanie Watts
Cinematography by Jack Asher
Music by Malcolm Williamson
86 min
1.66:1 Anamorphic Widescreen
Color
English
Dubbed in Spanish
Subtitles: English, Spanish, French
Sunday, March 16, 2014
A Hammer Horror Extravaganza
And now for a look at a collection of Hammer films from Universal.
The Hammer Horror Series: The Franchise Collection
First things first, it's great to have a chunk of the Hammer oeuvre all in one place. All eight of the films included were new to me. There's nothing in the way of extras but the packaging is nice and complements the packaging for the Universal monsters collections. Though I find the double-sided discs to be annoying not because of disc-flipping (I'm not necessarily annoyed by having to get up and flip a disc.) but because of the increased potential for damage.
This is an eclectic collection with two vampire films, one werewolf, one Frankenstein, the Phantom of the Opera, two psychological thrillers and one pirate movie. 6 color films, 2 Black & White.
We'll be looking at the films themselves in detail in the next few entries. They span from 1960-1964 and represent the second wave of classic Hammer Horror. With the continuing series/sequels we can already see some aspects of sequel decay and redundancy. On the other hand this collection is a really good introduction to the variety of Hammer films at the apex of their productivity. One-offs like the Phantom were to eventually disappear from the Hammer repertoire as were pirate films (and adventure films in general) and the psych-mysteries that would be dubbed "mini-Hitchcocks" would also go away by the end of the 1960s as Hammer concentrated on vampires and evil scientists.
At least one film in this collection doesn't come close to qualifying as a horror movie any more than the Indiana Jones films would qualify as "horror." I suppose there's an argument to be made for either side of the inclusiveness of the genre heading.
At any rate, here's the rundown of what we have to look forward to:
Brides of Dracula (1960)
The Curse of the Werewolf (1961)
Phantom of the Opera (1962)
Paranoiac (1963)
The Kiss of the Vampire (1963)
Nightmare (1964)
Night Creatures (1962)
The Evil of Frankenstein (1964)
The Hammer Horror Series: The Franchise Collection
First things first, it's great to have a chunk of the Hammer oeuvre all in one place. All eight of the films included were new to me. There's nothing in the way of extras but the packaging is nice and complements the packaging for the Universal monsters collections. Though I find the double-sided discs to be annoying not because of disc-flipping (I'm not necessarily annoyed by having to get up and flip a disc.) but because of the increased potential for damage.
This is an eclectic collection with two vampire films, one werewolf, one Frankenstein, the Phantom of the Opera, two psychological thrillers and one pirate movie. 6 color films, 2 Black & White.
We'll be looking at the films themselves in detail in the next few entries. They span from 1960-1964 and represent the second wave of classic Hammer Horror. With the continuing series/sequels we can already see some aspects of sequel decay and redundancy. On the other hand this collection is a really good introduction to the variety of Hammer films at the apex of their productivity. One-offs like the Phantom were to eventually disappear from the Hammer repertoire as were pirate films (and adventure films in general) and the psych-mysteries that would be dubbed "mini-Hitchcocks" would also go away by the end of the 1960s as Hammer concentrated on vampires and evil scientists.
At least one film in this collection doesn't come close to qualifying as a horror movie any more than the Indiana Jones films would qualify as "horror." I suppose there's an argument to be made for either side of the inclusiveness of the genre heading.
At any rate, here's the rundown of what we have to look forward to:
Brides of Dracula (1960)
The Curse of the Werewolf (1961)
Phantom of the Opera (1962)
Paranoiac (1963)
The Kiss of the Vampire (1963)
Nightmare (1964)
Night Creatures (1962)
The Evil of Frankenstein (1964)
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Hammer of the Baskervilles
The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959)
Directed by Terence Fisher
Screenplay by Peter Bryan
Fans of Sherlock Holmes are living in the golden age of Benedict Cumberbatch. In the long history of Sherlock adaptations there have been some real gems and we are lucky enough to have more than one good contemporary version to choose from. But as all of these many versions prove, there seems to be no real end to the demand for more Sherlock. Fortunately, we are also living in an age where the archives of the past are more available to us than at any previous time and we should take advantage of that availability while we can. So, maybe you need a new fix for your Conan Doyle addiction. There are plenty of good choices out there and Hammer's foray into Baker Street is a good one.
Hammer's Hound film was the first Sherlock Holmes film in color. (Well, colour, to be more precise.) While this film got short shrift from Hammer's horror fans (and to some extent, still does) the fact is that the aesthetics of the film are substantially the same as the other Hammer gothics from the studio's initial wave of films that established its reputation. The only real difference is that The Mummy, Curse of Frankenstein and Horror of Dracula all have a few moments of gore and horror added to what would otherwise be easily recognized as a similar kind of mystery adventure story that we see in Hound. Hammer's gorehound fans in 1959 were not pleased and thus dissuaded Hammer from making more Sherlock films with Peter Cushing. (Cushing would go on to play Holmes for a BBC series.) We should not let the prejudices of the initial audience for this film guide our choices. The Hound of the Baskervilles is not just a good Sherlock Holmes film, it's a good film regardless of genre or subgenre.
Although I had seen this film before I thought I should take another look at it as I've been making my way through my Hammer collection. I'm glad I did that, because I also needed some more Sherlock and this did the trick. In terms of overlapping fandoms this film is a great confluence of the streams of culture.
Aesthetically, as I noted, this film is firmly of a piece with Hammer's Frankenstein, Dracula and Mummy. Not coincidentally all three of those films were directed by Terence Fisher and featured Peter Cushing.
The film opens with the legend of the Baskervilles. While this sets us up for the red herring of the "curse" it also serves to give us a certain distaste for the landed aristocracy represented by the Baskervilles. While Sir Hugo's vicious behavior (or, to be precise, behaviour) doesn't have to be a genetic inheritance, I think it's telling that his club of friends isn't exactly excoriating his nastiness or turning it away from him. It's strongly indicated that Sir Hugo was planning on gang raping the servant girl who escaped from the locked room. Gang raping requires a gang and his friends are the rest of the gang. While the Baskervilles come out of this with a curse on their heads the rest of Sir Hugo's buddies (who weren't exactly restraining his excesses or vocally disapproving of them) are allowed to roam around the place curse-free. While the story itself does not approve of an overthrow of the powers that be, it does make the death of Sir Hugo a desirable end for him and on the other hand it introduces a hint of ambivalence about the death of Sir Charles Baskerville and maybe even the death of the seemingly very affable Sir Henry Baskerville.
And if you need something to be ambivalent about Sir Henry it is the fact that in this film he is coming back to England from Johannesburg. Exactly what was Sir Henry Baskerville doing in South Africa? We never find out, obviously, but it raises a lot of questions. The lacuna of his activities allows us a completely open interpretation. We can imagine anything we want, from the most pleasant and edifying scenarios (He was in no way oppressing anyone or he might even have been there to champion freedom and equality for all mankind) to murkier possibilities in the grey zone (he was oppressing only Afrikaaners) to outright Hugo Baskerville levels of darkness. (He was oppressing everybody.)
We can imagine whatever we want about Sir Henry, but his ancestor was definitely a bully and a murderer. The hound that kills him is a symbol of either natural or divine retribution for his ultimate transgression. Justice is swift.
As for Sir Charles, we are ultimately informed that he fell for a classic "honey trap." The "honey" in this case was Cecile Stapleton. Sir Henry also falls for the honey trap, though the rapidity with which he falls for Cecile is a little bit abrupt. Cecile certainly sees Sir Charles's pursuit of her as a moral and ethical failing, an indicator of lechery that only confirms his descent from the terrible Sir Hugo.
But then, the argument is undercut by the revelation that the Stapletons are themselves the illegitimate descendants of the Baskervilles. Once you factor that last piece of information into the idea of the "curse" then the end of the story might even be seen as a proper result of the parameters of the curse as both Stapleton and his daughter Cecile are brought to an end by their evil/murderous schemes.
If the Stapletons are undone by a malevolent sense of familial unity, then Selden the escaped convict is killed because of a more benign sense of familial unity. Selden is Mrs. Barrymore's brother. She provides assistance to him, including Sir Henry's old suit which attracts the hound that kills him. Selden's death is the key piece of evidence for Holmes to solve the crime. Stapleton tries to trap him in a mine shaft, but like Stapleton's other schemes this is again an imperfect solution.
The inherited webbed hand is a nice touch added for the film. It gives Holmes (and the audience) another piece of evidence linking the Stapletons to the motive for murdering all the Baskervilles.
There is certainly a sense of real tragedy in that Sir Henry seems to have developed genuine attraction to Cecile. Mind you, he is very attracted to her in a very short span of time. But still, let's say that his intentions are noble and he really means it and would have been good to her. The tragedy then, is that Cecile might have had a genuine chance to reconcile the historic wrong and unite the "legitimate" and "illegitimate" branches of the Baskerville descendants. But was she always faking her attraction to Sir Henry to keep up her part of the plan? That's what she says. Everything she seems to do to get his attention seems to be part of her plan. She even manages to lure Watson into quicksand believing him to be Sir Henry. (Though she doesn't exactly go far in trying to seduce Dr. Watson the way she is clearly hate-flirting with Sir Henry.) So maybe there was no real chance for Sir Henry and Cecile because she was never sincere in her attraction to him except maybe (maybe) in her physical attraction to him.
As for the "hound" it is a largish dog with a really dumb looking leather mask, but then the original text featured a constant application of glow in the dark dog toothpaste, so maybe the mask is a classier choice.
The comic relief from the Bishop is another nice touch.
As I said before, the only real ambivalence is in the continued rule of the aristocracy that is descended from the degenerate and brutal ancestors we see in the prologue. But Sir Henry Baskerville seems like he is cut from a different cloth. (For that matter, the only bad thing we know about Sir Charles is that he went out on the moors looking for a hot girl--when he is clearly single and living by himself in a large house.) Sure, Sir Henry has been in South Africa but we can at least hope (fervently) that he is a nice guy on the right side of history. Other than that possible bit of unease caused by the lack of information about Sir Henry, he and certainly the rest of the social order of the area appear to be quite benign and charming.
All in all, The Hound of the Baskervilles is a fun film to watch. It is a classic of its genre, a classic of its subgenre and a classic film regardless of genre. It is one of the few Hammer films that holds together (in a way even better than the source material) and where the pacing does not shift to an abrupt ending. This film is highly recommended and hopefully it will find its rightful place with audiences in the future.
Sherlock Holmes -- Peter Cushing
Doctor Watson -- Andre Morell
Sir Henry Baskerville -- Christopher Lee
Sir Hugo Baskerville -- David Oxley
Cecile Stapleton -- Marla Landi
Stapleton -- Ewen Solon
Doctor Richard Mortimer -- Francis De Wolff
Bishop Frankland -- Miles Malleson
Barrymore -- John Le Mesurier
Mrs. Barrymore -- Helen Goss
Selden -- Michael Mulcaster
Perkins -- Sam Kydd
Lord Caphill -- Michael Hawkins
Servant Girl -- Judi Moyens
Servant -- David Birks
Cinematography by Jack Asher
Music by James Bernard
Directed by Terence Fisher
Screenplay by Peter Bryan
Fans of Sherlock Holmes are living in the golden age of Benedict Cumberbatch. In the long history of Sherlock adaptations there have been some real gems and we are lucky enough to have more than one good contemporary version to choose from. But as all of these many versions prove, there seems to be no real end to the demand for more Sherlock. Fortunately, we are also living in an age where the archives of the past are more available to us than at any previous time and we should take advantage of that availability while we can. So, maybe you need a new fix for your Conan Doyle addiction. There are plenty of good choices out there and Hammer's foray into Baker Street is a good one.
Hammer's Hound film was the first Sherlock Holmes film in color. (Well, colour, to be more precise.) While this film got short shrift from Hammer's horror fans (and to some extent, still does) the fact is that the aesthetics of the film are substantially the same as the other Hammer gothics from the studio's initial wave of films that established its reputation. The only real difference is that The Mummy, Curse of Frankenstein and Horror of Dracula all have a few moments of gore and horror added to what would otherwise be easily recognized as a similar kind of mystery adventure story that we see in Hound. Hammer's gorehound fans in 1959 were not pleased and thus dissuaded Hammer from making more Sherlock films with Peter Cushing. (Cushing would go on to play Holmes for a BBC series.) We should not let the prejudices of the initial audience for this film guide our choices. The Hound of the Baskervilles is not just a good Sherlock Holmes film, it's a good film regardless of genre or subgenre.
Although I had seen this film before I thought I should take another look at it as I've been making my way through my Hammer collection. I'm glad I did that, because I also needed some more Sherlock and this did the trick. In terms of overlapping fandoms this film is a great confluence of the streams of culture.
Aesthetically, as I noted, this film is firmly of a piece with Hammer's Frankenstein, Dracula and Mummy. Not coincidentally all three of those films were directed by Terence Fisher and featured Peter Cushing.
The film opens with the legend of the Baskervilles. While this sets us up for the red herring of the "curse" it also serves to give us a certain distaste for the landed aristocracy represented by the Baskervilles. While Sir Hugo's vicious behavior (or, to be precise, behaviour) doesn't have to be a genetic inheritance, I think it's telling that his club of friends isn't exactly excoriating his nastiness or turning it away from him. It's strongly indicated that Sir Hugo was planning on gang raping the servant girl who escaped from the locked room. Gang raping requires a gang and his friends are the rest of the gang. While the Baskervilles come out of this with a curse on their heads the rest of Sir Hugo's buddies (who weren't exactly restraining his excesses or vocally disapproving of them) are allowed to roam around the place curse-free. While the story itself does not approve of an overthrow of the powers that be, it does make the death of Sir Hugo a desirable end for him and on the other hand it introduces a hint of ambivalence about the death of Sir Charles Baskerville and maybe even the death of the seemingly very affable Sir Henry Baskerville.
And if you need something to be ambivalent about Sir Henry it is the fact that in this film he is coming back to England from Johannesburg. Exactly what was Sir Henry Baskerville doing in South Africa? We never find out, obviously, but it raises a lot of questions. The lacuna of his activities allows us a completely open interpretation. We can imagine anything we want, from the most pleasant and edifying scenarios (He was in no way oppressing anyone or he might even have been there to champion freedom and equality for all mankind) to murkier possibilities in the grey zone (he was oppressing only Afrikaaners) to outright Hugo Baskerville levels of darkness. (He was oppressing everybody.)
We can imagine whatever we want about Sir Henry, but his ancestor was definitely a bully and a murderer. The hound that kills him is a symbol of either natural or divine retribution for his ultimate transgression. Justice is swift.
As for Sir Charles, we are ultimately informed that he fell for a classic "honey trap." The "honey" in this case was Cecile Stapleton. Sir Henry also falls for the honey trap, though the rapidity with which he falls for Cecile is a little bit abrupt. Cecile certainly sees Sir Charles's pursuit of her as a moral and ethical failing, an indicator of lechery that only confirms his descent from the terrible Sir Hugo.
But then, the argument is undercut by the revelation that the Stapletons are themselves the illegitimate descendants of the Baskervilles. Once you factor that last piece of information into the idea of the "curse" then the end of the story might even be seen as a proper result of the parameters of the curse as both Stapleton and his daughter Cecile are brought to an end by their evil/murderous schemes.
If the Stapletons are undone by a malevolent sense of familial unity, then Selden the escaped convict is killed because of a more benign sense of familial unity. Selden is Mrs. Barrymore's brother. She provides assistance to him, including Sir Henry's old suit which attracts the hound that kills him. Selden's death is the key piece of evidence for Holmes to solve the crime. Stapleton tries to trap him in a mine shaft, but like Stapleton's other schemes this is again an imperfect solution.
The inherited webbed hand is a nice touch added for the film. It gives Holmes (and the audience) another piece of evidence linking the Stapletons to the motive for murdering all the Baskervilles.
There is certainly a sense of real tragedy in that Sir Henry seems to have developed genuine attraction to Cecile. Mind you, he is very attracted to her in a very short span of time. But still, let's say that his intentions are noble and he really means it and would have been good to her. The tragedy then, is that Cecile might have had a genuine chance to reconcile the historic wrong and unite the "legitimate" and "illegitimate" branches of the Baskerville descendants. But was she always faking her attraction to Sir Henry to keep up her part of the plan? That's what she says. Everything she seems to do to get his attention seems to be part of her plan. She even manages to lure Watson into quicksand believing him to be Sir Henry. (Though she doesn't exactly go far in trying to seduce Dr. Watson the way she is clearly hate-flirting with Sir Henry.) So maybe there was no real chance for Sir Henry and Cecile because she was never sincere in her attraction to him except maybe (maybe) in her physical attraction to him.
As for the "hound" it is a largish dog with a really dumb looking leather mask, but then the original text featured a constant application of glow in the dark dog toothpaste, so maybe the mask is a classier choice.
The comic relief from the Bishop is another nice touch.
As I said before, the only real ambivalence is in the continued rule of the aristocracy that is descended from the degenerate and brutal ancestors we see in the prologue. But Sir Henry Baskerville seems like he is cut from a different cloth. (For that matter, the only bad thing we know about Sir Charles is that he went out on the moors looking for a hot girl--when he is clearly single and living by himself in a large house.) Sure, Sir Henry has been in South Africa but we can at least hope (fervently) that he is a nice guy on the right side of history. Other than that possible bit of unease caused by the lack of information about Sir Henry, he and certainly the rest of the social order of the area appear to be quite benign and charming.
All in all, The Hound of the Baskervilles is a fun film to watch. It is a classic of its genre, a classic of its subgenre and a classic film regardless of genre. It is one of the few Hammer films that holds together (in a way even better than the source material) and where the pacing does not shift to an abrupt ending. This film is highly recommended and hopefully it will find its rightful place with audiences in the future.
Sherlock Holmes -- Peter Cushing
Doctor Watson -- Andre Morell
Sir Henry Baskerville -- Christopher Lee
Sir Hugo Baskerville -- David Oxley
Cecile Stapleton -- Marla Landi
Stapleton -- Ewen Solon
Doctor Richard Mortimer -- Francis De Wolff
Bishop Frankland -- Miles Malleson
Barrymore -- John Le Mesurier
Mrs. Barrymore -- Helen Goss
Selden -- Michael Mulcaster
Perkins -- Sam Kydd
Lord Caphill -- Michael Hawkins
Servant Girl -- Judi Moyens
Servant -- David Birks
Cinematography by Jack Asher
Music by James Bernard
Monday, December 30, 2013
Kronos, Stakes of Fate
Captain Kronos Vampire Hunter (1972)
Directed by Brian Clemens
Screenplay by Brian Clemens
Captain Kronos was ahead of its time. Nowadays if you do a pilot for a television series about a vampire hunter and his assistant traveling around hunting different kinds of demons you'd be told that it's been done before. (Or you'd be told that television is dead and that so is every other form of media.) But what if he's really good with a sword, you know sort of like the Highlander, or Blade?
Yeah, and make everybody younger and less experienced with the killing of vampires and you have Buffy. But Captain Kronos was never given the chance that Buffy, Highlander and Blade had. Is it too late for a story about a veteran of the Napoleonic Wars traipsing through Europe (and, by the looks of that katana, beyond) and killing vampires with his brilliant hunchback sidekick/watcher?
I really hope not. And if the period setting is a dealbreaker imagine the whole thing Sherlocked into a contemporary setting. Kronos is still a veteran, the hunchback is still a hunchback and the vampires are still vampires.
Speaking of Sherlock, here's another reason to look at this film again. Take a closer look at Wanda Ventham as Lady Durward. That's Benedict Cumberbatch's mother.
There are so many things to enjoy about this film. For instance, the fact that Kronos saves Carla from the stupid punishment of being placed in stocks for dancing on a Sunday. It's a good reminder of the kind of illiberal history of European and Western culture and religion that in most contemporary discourse is completely shunted onto swarthier folk.
The class issues are great too. Have you ever noticed that the big bad vampire is never a working class mook with a taste for blood but instead is by definition a member of an aristocracy that exploits the labor and life force of others even without supernatural bloodsucking? Yep, those Durwards are a bunch of useless vampires no matter what. And like all aristocrats they manage to mesmerize even sensible folks like Dr. Marcus into being extra nice to them.
I had forgotten the old buddy from the war factor in the relationship between Kronos and Marcus. Kronos owes Marcus. It also makes the relationship much more personal. Killing off Marcus is a seriously Whedonesque move in a pre-Whedon era. If Kronos had become a series you can imagine there would have been a lot of that. Of course, if the premise of the show had been that Kronos and Grost are completely itinerant (Have Stakes, Will Travel) there would have been a Bonanza effect when it came to anybody they met along the way.
Different kinds of vampires is a very nice touch, especially since the ending ties things to the Hammer Karnstein films based on Sheridan Le Fanu's Carmilla. Daywalkers are harder to track.
The family dynamic of the Durwards is enduringly ambiguous. What is going on with the brother and sister there? They're either having a relationship with each other or trying to be each other.
And for that matter the mother and father don't make things any more easy to understand.
At least a closer examination reveals why there's so much awesome swordplay since Hagen is played by William Hobbs who is now renowned for his work as a sword fight choreographer.
The existential angst of the hunchback sidekick is a really nice touch. And the fact that he is a necessary part of the team as the researcher and armorer makes him much more than a sidekick and closer to being a real Giles.
I suppose leaving Carla behind was as much a contractual safety bet as it was a matter of leaving Kronos unencumbered by a relationship. (It's clear that Kronos is not ready for a real commitment anyway.)
All in all, Captain Kronos survives closer scrutiny. I already want to watch it again.
Cast
Captain Kronos, Vampire Hunter -- Horst Janson
Kronos (Voice) -- Julian Holloway
Grost -- John Cater
Dr. Marcus -- John Carson
Carla -- Caroline Munro
Lady Durward -- Wanda Ventham
Paul Durward -- Shane Briant
Sara Durward -- Lois Daine
Hagen -- William Hobbs
George Sorell --Brian Tully
Vanda Sorell -- Lisa Collings
Isabella Sorell -- Susanna East
Barton Sorell -- Stafford Gordon
Ann Sorell -- Elizabeth Dear
Kerro -- Ian Hendry
Pointer -- Robert James
Barlow -- Perry Soblosky
Giles -- Paul Greenwood
Barman -- John Hollis
Myra -- Joanna Ross
Priest -- Neil Seiler
Lilian -- Olga Anthony
Blind Girl -- Gigi Gurpinar
Big Man --Peter Davidson
Tom -- Terence Sewards
Deke -- Trevor Lawrence
Barmaid -- Jacqui Cook
Whore --Penny Price
Petra -- Caroline Villiers
Jane -- Linda Cunningham
Music by Laurie Johnson
Cinematography by Ian Wilson
Directed by Brian Clemens
Screenplay by Brian Clemens
Captain Kronos was ahead of its time. Nowadays if you do a pilot for a television series about a vampire hunter and his assistant traveling around hunting different kinds of demons you'd be told that it's been done before. (Or you'd be told that television is dead and that so is every other form of media.) But what if he's really good with a sword, you know sort of like the Highlander, or Blade?
Yeah, and make everybody younger and less experienced with the killing of vampires and you have Buffy. But Captain Kronos was never given the chance that Buffy, Highlander and Blade had. Is it too late for a story about a veteran of the Napoleonic Wars traipsing through Europe (and, by the looks of that katana, beyond) and killing vampires with his brilliant hunchback sidekick/watcher?
I really hope not. And if the period setting is a dealbreaker imagine the whole thing Sherlocked into a contemporary setting. Kronos is still a veteran, the hunchback is still a hunchback and the vampires are still vampires.
Speaking of Sherlock, here's another reason to look at this film again. Take a closer look at Wanda Ventham as Lady Durward. That's Benedict Cumberbatch's mother.
There are so many things to enjoy about this film. For instance, the fact that Kronos saves Carla from the stupid punishment of being placed in stocks for dancing on a Sunday. It's a good reminder of the kind of illiberal history of European and Western culture and religion that in most contemporary discourse is completely shunted onto swarthier folk.
The class issues are great too. Have you ever noticed that the big bad vampire is never a working class mook with a taste for blood but instead is by definition a member of an aristocracy that exploits the labor and life force of others even without supernatural bloodsucking? Yep, those Durwards are a bunch of useless vampires no matter what. And like all aristocrats they manage to mesmerize even sensible folks like Dr. Marcus into being extra nice to them.
I had forgotten the old buddy from the war factor in the relationship between Kronos and Marcus. Kronos owes Marcus. It also makes the relationship much more personal. Killing off Marcus is a seriously Whedonesque move in a pre-Whedon era. If Kronos had become a series you can imagine there would have been a lot of that. Of course, if the premise of the show had been that Kronos and Grost are completely itinerant (Have Stakes, Will Travel) there would have been a Bonanza effect when it came to anybody they met along the way.
Different kinds of vampires is a very nice touch, especially since the ending ties things to the Hammer Karnstein films based on Sheridan Le Fanu's Carmilla. Daywalkers are harder to track.
The family dynamic of the Durwards is enduringly ambiguous. What is going on with the brother and sister there? They're either having a relationship with each other or trying to be each other.
And for that matter the mother and father don't make things any more easy to understand.
At least a closer examination reveals why there's so much awesome swordplay since Hagen is played by William Hobbs who is now renowned for his work as a sword fight choreographer.
The existential angst of the hunchback sidekick is a really nice touch. And the fact that he is a necessary part of the team as the researcher and armorer makes him much more than a sidekick and closer to being a real Giles.
I suppose leaving Carla behind was as much a contractual safety bet as it was a matter of leaving Kronos unencumbered by a relationship. (It's clear that Kronos is not ready for a real commitment anyway.)
All in all, Captain Kronos survives closer scrutiny. I already want to watch it again.
Cast
Captain Kronos, Vampire Hunter -- Horst Janson
Kronos (Voice) -- Julian Holloway
Grost -- John Cater
Dr. Marcus -- John Carson
Carla -- Caroline Munro
Lady Durward -- Wanda Ventham
Paul Durward -- Shane Briant
Sara Durward -- Lois Daine
Hagen -- William Hobbs
George Sorell --Brian Tully
Vanda Sorell -- Lisa Collings
Isabella Sorell -- Susanna East
Barton Sorell -- Stafford Gordon
Ann Sorell -- Elizabeth Dear
Kerro -- Ian Hendry
Pointer -- Robert James
Barlow -- Perry Soblosky
Giles -- Paul Greenwood
Barman -- John Hollis
Myra -- Joanna Ross
Priest -- Neil Seiler
Lilian -- Olga Anthony
Blind Girl -- Gigi Gurpinar
Big Man --Peter Davidson
Tom -- Terence Sewards
Deke -- Trevor Lawrence
Barmaid -- Jacqui Cook
Whore --Penny Price
Petra -- Caroline Villiers
Jane -- Linda Cunningham
Music by Laurie Johnson
Cinematography by Ian Wilson
The Bureaucratic Machinery of Dracula
The Satanic Rites of Dracula (1973)
(Platinum Disc Corporation edition)
Directed by Alan Gibson
Screenplay by Don Houghton
Alright, I'm still trying to find a better edition of this film which lapsed into the Public Domain in the U.S. This version starts out with some awkward blacked out credits (thanks copyright Stalins!).
This film takes the Satanic ritual parts of Dracula A.D. 1972 and (obviously) puts them center stage. In previous Hammer Dracula films the devilish rituals were focused on bringing back Dracula and then the rest of the business was left to Dracula to do his vampire thing. In this film Dracula is already back (though we're not fully sure of it until Van Helsing confirms it) and Dracula himself is appealing to a lower darker power in order to...take over/destroy the world. That's right, we've finally gotten to the point where the stakes have been raised beyond the simpler (and frankly more dramatically convincing) human-sized stakes (pun intended) of the older Dracula stories. We've skipped right past the intermediate stakes and we're already talking about apocalypse. Make no mistake, it's reckoning that Dracula is looking for. This Dracula has an undeath wish and is intent on destroying all of humanity with a biochemical plague. And to add insult to injury he again decides to take Van Helsing's granddaughter Jessica with him as his vampire longtime companion.
As Van Helsing points out, Count Dracula's apocalyptic plan involves killing off his own food source and thus slowly starving for eternity. But Dracula doesn't seem to care about the logical conundrum of his plan. He just wants to take a giant rancid vampire dump on the world. This is more than his erstwhile cult leaders can actually bear.
See, after dealing with hipster youth in the 1972 incarnation Dracula gets wise and uses cult bikers as mere bodyguards and instead enlists ambitious pillars of the establishment who look to create a crisis that will allow them to unleash a neo-fascist regime that will enrich them leave them with complete power. (We've been afraid of this kind of conspiracy for a while, you see.) But exactly what did these guys think they were doing? At least Julian Keeley the Nobel prize winning scientist who helps create Dracula's super-plague recognizes what he's doing beyond mere venal terms. He knows that he is in league with evil, and whether it is because he is entranced or just plain bonkers he expresses quite eloquently the fact that he has decided that evil is just stronger in the end. Van Helsing tries to get him to fight against it but he is instead knocked out by a gunshot (that only grazes his head, thanks to fate/divine will of Providence/power of writer). Keeley is found hanged.
Here's the question: was Keeley murdered by the Dracula Satan Cult, and if so did Dracula give the order? Because it's easy to see that Keeley's deteriorating mental state, combined with Van Helsing's contact, turn Keeley into a liability and possibly a set of loose lips that needs to be silenced. But on the other hand Dracula ends up deciding to use Van Helsing as his "fourth horseman" to spread the plague which means keeping his deadliest nemesis close by at the crucial eleventh hour before his plan can come to fruition. (Don't even get me started about the ham-handed "ticking clock" of the "Sabbath of the Undead.") Of course, I understand Dracula's desire to stick it to Van Helsing by keeping him alive to watch Dracula turning Jessica into his absolutely fabulous eternal trophy wife. But didn't you try this plan in 1972, Mr. Dracula? That was only a year ago. Why do you think the same plan will work better? Don't you at least have a little tingle of spidey-sense that will make you slightly wary of trying the same thing that got you pinned on a hedge of spikes last year?
Meanwhile, what's really interesting is that while Dracula has been literally brought back in corporeal form he has also become quite incorporated as well. Are his collaborators really aware that the reclusive D.D. Denham, whose corporate headquarters building is built on the former site of St. Bartholph's Church (which was in ruins in the previous Hammer Dracula film) is actually Count Dracula? Or do they just think he's a curious billionaire who likes to dabble in satanism and who promises a quick path to eternal life (which he's proved to them through the amateur theatrics of stabbing a pretty blonde girl and bringing her back as a vampire)?
As for the reclusive billionaire who turns out to be a vampire bent on destroying a humanity that he despises by manipulating power hungry, greedy and lecherous pillars of society--well, isn't that really what all corporations are really up to? D.D. Denham has the good grace of at least being an actual vampire with a soft spot for monologuing with his nemesis.
And for all the money that he has why does Dracula have one of the worst looking top floor offices I've ever seen? I hope Dracula drained the blood of the architect that came up with that room. And what kind of recluse has an office where the elevator from the lobby can open up directly in front of your desk? Are you trying to be assassinated?
Speaking of assassinations, I have to hand it to Van Helsing for walking into the Devil's den with the world's daintiest Derringer. At least we see him melting down the silver cross and making his own bullet. But then maybe it's refreshing to see someone who doesn't need one of those Underworld vampire assault rifles.
Another motif from this film is that if the powers that be are infiltrated or controlled by people up to no good then the only way to confront them is to engage in a rogue operation. You can see the problem with this logic. It's good and well if the problem is that the minister in charge of the Intelligence Services is working with a vampire and you need to go rogue to infiltrate the vampire house and kill some vampires. But take out that supernatural element and the whole conflict becomes shady.
Let's talk gender issues for a second here. There are plenty of women in this film, but they are either victims or monsters. And only one of the victims manages to escape being turned into a monster and that is Jessica. The case of Jane from the secret intelligence agency office is instructive. She is sent home to get some rest after some hard work and is kidnapped by the world's worst dressed bikers.
The intelligence agency doesn't even realize she's missing when they go take a look at the country house they have had under surveillance. She is held by the cult and fed upon and turned by Dracula. (Surely somebody in the cult is quite aware of the vampirism.) When they do finally stumble upon her she is chained to a wall. The paternal Torrence tries to rescue her, unaware that Jane is now a vampire. When she tries to attack Murray manages to drive a stake into her chest...her now conveniently bare chest. Now, there's a really good reason why the 1930s Dracula films cut away from the image of driving stakes into people's chests. And while most of that reasoning was based on violence, the other half of that is the combination of violence and nudity that in this film quite frankly sexualizes the violence. I might think this is an overreaction to some merely titillating (wipe that smirk off your face, Smedley) exploitation. But then there's the later scene with Murray and Chin Yang.
There's no other way to describe the positioning of bodies in the struggle between the police inspector and the vampire mistress than the position of sexual copulation but with murderous intent on both sides. It's not just the fact that Murray is on top of Chin Yang and she is lying underneath him--they are fully clothed, more or less--but it's the camera angle and the way the situation lingers and continues for much longer than mere melee would demand. It frankly looks more like a rape and in a situation where the man in the "rapist" position is nominally the good guy and the woman in the "victim" position is an evil vampire it's an awkward situation that seems to legitimize any kind of "staking" that Murray is about to deliver. And if it was a simple matter of pinning her down and staking her as soon as possible, the fact that she's a vampire would seem to suffice. But I will say it again, the series of images that can be mistaken for sex lingers for an impossibly long time, and the part where she has a fishnet thrown over her...I'll leave that for some other discussion some other time. Let's just say that this staking was as much too obvious in its metaphor as the one with Jane.
As for the other former victims who are now monsters (all of them women)? Remember the thing from Dracula A.D. 1972 where the vampires can be killed off by running water? Well, what better way to destroy a basement full of vampire women (who are chained to their coffins, mind you) than to open up the spigot of the helpfully placed sprinkler system at the top of the stairs? While at first this might seem to be a case of the writers giving a character a too simple solution for a really big problem, it actually makes sense when you think about the corporate structure of the Denham/Dracula conglomerate and what they're up to. It's not about proliferating vampirism and unleashing hordes of ravenous monsters on the country. Especially if that means unleashing independent female monsters. Dracula here isn't in the business of liberating anybody's sexuality. He's harnessed it, shackled it and turned it into a commodity and lest anybody think there's anything the least bit liberating about it he's put a kill switch in easy reach where he can order the whole operation shut down with a simple sprinkle of water. In that regard, this film has hidden within it a pretty cynical analogue for the very kind of exploitation that I found problematic with the deaths of Jane and Chin Yang. This film is part of the very cynical media co-opting of "liberated" female sexuality. (Look, I'm free to rip open my blouse and get staked in the chest if I choose to do that.) But the vampire girls chained to their coffins have no real agency. They are part of the machine that uses their bodies and keeps their bodies available and which will dispense with them once they are no longer of use. They aren't even free to do the thing that they have been "turned" into desiring on their own volition. They will be "fed" when the company has decided to feed them. Of course, this kind of critique bears all the problems that go with Being the Thing You're Criticizing.
At any rate, that's something I noted about this film that was a bit troubling.
Of course Van Helsing pulls through in the end and with Murray's help saves Jessica (and the rest of the world.) Once again it is the articles of faith that are required to put down the vampire, though here there is no requirement of faith itself, just the articles of faith as if there's a mutual recognition that neither the vampire nor the vampire killer believe in the rituals they are engaging in (does Dracula really think the Sabbath of the Undead holds some sort of special meaning?) but that the objects have acquired the requisite patina of precedent that makes them the mutually agreed upon Things That Will Kill a Vampire Because...even if the vampire killer and the vampire don't really care about what you believe in. Still, a hawthorne bush...that's a nice trick. Not sure why Dracula wouldn't have a serious scent-based radar for the presence of hawthorne (granted, it's not garlic or wolfsbane).
So this is the last of Hammer Dracula films with Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. Not exactly a bang, but I'm not sure I would have liked to see what Dracula 1974 would have looked like. I suspect that it might have looked like Five Easy Pieces or maybe it would have looked like Moonraker, who knows?
If Dracula A.D. 1972 played out like a seventies cop show, then this film played out like a seventies spy thriller. Something like Day of the Jackal or The Eiger Sanction but with vampires and pseudo-satanic rituals. And maybe part of the problem is that the film could have used a more self-conscious mixing of genre that would make the whole thing slightly more coherent.
Cast
D.D. Denham/Count Dracula -- Christopher Lee
Lorrimer Van Helsing -- Peter Cushing
Jessica Van Helsing -- Joanna Lumley
Inspector Murray -- Michael Coles
Torrence -- William Franklyn
Julian Keeley -- Freddie Jones
Colonel Mathews -- Richard Vernon
Chin Yang -- Barbara Yu Ling
Lord Carradine -- Patrick Barr
John Porter -- Richard Mathews
General Sir Arthur Freeborne -- Lockwood West
Jane -- Valerie Van Ost
Hanson -- Maurice O'Connell
Doctor -- Peter Adair
Vampire Girls -- Maggie Fitzgerald, Pauline Peart, Finnuala O'Shannon, Mia Martin
Guard #1-- Marc Zuber
Guard #2 -- Paul Weston
Guard #3 -- Ian Dewar
Guard #4 -- Graham Rees
Commissionaire -- John Harvey
Music by John Cacavas
Cinematography by Brian Probyn
(Platinum Disc Corporation edition)
Directed by Alan Gibson
Screenplay by Don Houghton
Alright, I'm still trying to find a better edition of this film which lapsed into the Public Domain in the U.S. This version starts out with some awkward blacked out credits (thanks copyright Stalins!).
This film takes the Satanic ritual parts of Dracula A.D. 1972 and (obviously) puts them center stage. In previous Hammer Dracula films the devilish rituals were focused on bringing back Dracula and then the rest of the business was left to Dracula to do his vampire thing. In this film Dracula is already back (though we're not fully sure of it until Van Helsing confirms it) and Dracula himself is appealing to a lower darker power in order to...take over/destroy the world. That's right, we've finally gotten to the point where the stakes have been raised beyond the simpler (and frankly more dramatically convincing) human-sized stakes (pun intended) of the older Dracula stories. We've skipped right past the intermediate stakes and we're already talking about apocalypse. Make no mistake, it's reckoning that Dracula is looking for. This Dracula has an undeath wish and is intent on destroying all of humanity with a biochemical plague. And to add insult to injury he again decides to take Van Helsing's granddaughter Jessica with him as his vampire longtime companion.
As Van Helsing points out, Count Dracula's apocalyptic plan involves killing off his own food source and thus slowly starving for eternity. But Dracula doesn't seem to care about the logical conundrum of his plan. He just wants to take a giant rancid vampire dump on the world. This is more than his erstwhile cult leaders can actually bear.
See, after dealing with hipster youth in the 1972 incarnation Dracula gets wise and uses cult bikers as mere bodyguards and instead enlists ambitious pillars of the establishment who look to create a crisis that will allow them to unleash a neo-fascist regime that will enrich them leave them with complete power. (We've been afraid of this kind of conspiracy for a while, you see.) But exactly what did these guys think they were doing? At least Julian Keeley the Nobel prize winning scientist who helps create Dracula's super-plague recognizes what he's doing beyond mere venal terms. He knows that he is in league with evil, and whether it is because he is entranced or just plain bonkers he expresses quite eloquently the fact that he has decided that evil is just stronger in the end. Van Helsing tries to get him to fight against it but he is instead knocked out by a gunshot (that only grazes his head, thanks to fate/divine will of Providence/power of writer). Keeley is found hanged.
Here's the question: was Keeley murdered by the Dracula Satan Cult, and if so did Dracula give the order? Because it's easy to see that Keeley's deteriorating mental state, combined with Van Helsing's contact, turn Keeley into a liability and possibly a set of loose lips that needs to be silenced. But on the other hand Dracula ends up deciding to use Van Helsing as his "fourth horseman" to spread the plague which means keeping his deadliest nemesis close by at the crucial eleventh hour before his plan can come to fruition. (Don't even get me started about the ham-handed "ticking clock" of the "Sabbath of the Undead.") Of course, I understand Dracula's desire to stick it to Van Helsing by keeping him alive to watch Dracula turning Jessica into his absolutely fabulous eternal trophy wife. But didn't you try this plan in 1972, Mr. Dracula? That was only a year ago. Why do you think the same plan will work better? Don't you at least have a little tingle of spidey-sense that will make you slightly wary of trying the same thing that got you pinned on a hedge of spikes last year?
Meanwhile, what's really interesting is that while Dracula has been literally brought back in corporeal form he has also become quite incorporated as well. Are his collaborators really aware that the reclusive D.D. Denham, whose corporate headquarters building is built on the former site of St. Bartholph's Church (which was in ruins in the previous Hammer Dracula film) is actually Count Dracula? Or do they just think he's a curious billionaire who likes to dabble in satanism and who promises a quick path to eternal life (which he's proved to them through the amateur theatrics of stabbing a pretty blonde girl and bringing her back as a vampire)?
As for the reclusive billionaire who turns out to be a vampire bent on destroying a humanity that he despises by manipulating power hungry, greedy and lecherous pillars of society--well, isn't that really what all corporations are really up to? D.D. Denham has the good grace of at least being an actual vampire with a soft spot for monologuing with his nemesis.
And for all the money that he has why does Dracula have one of the worst looking top floor offices I've ever seen? I hope Dracula drained the blood of the architect that came up with that room. And what kind of recluse has an office where the elevator from the lobby can open up directly in front of your desk? Are you trying to be assassinated?
Speaking of assassinations, I have to hand it to Van Helsing for walking into the Devil's den with the world's daintiest Derringer. At least we see him melting down the silver cross and making his own bullet. But then maybe it's refreshing to see someone who doesn't need one of those Underworld vampire assault rifles.
Another motif from this film is that if the powers that be are infiltrated or controlled by people up to no good then the only way to confront them is to engage in a rogue operation. You can see the problem with this logic. It's good and well if the problem is that the minister in charge of the Intelligence Services is working with a vampire and you need to go rogue to infiltrate the vampire house and kill some vampires. But take out that supernatural element and the whole conflict becomes shady.
Let's talk gender issues for a second here. There are plenty of women in this film, but they are either victims or monsters. And only one of the victims manages to escape being turned into a monster and that is Jessica. The case of Jane from the secret intelligence agency office is instructive. She is sent home to get some rest after some hard work and is kidnapped by the world's worst dressed bikers.
The intelligence agency doesn't even realize she's missing when they go take a look at the country house they have had under surveillance. She is held by the cult and fed upon and turned by Dracula. (Surely somebody in the cult is quite aware of the vampirism.) When they do finally stumble upon her she is chained to a wall. The paternal Torrence tries to rescue her, unaware that Jane is now a vampire. When she tries to attack Murray manages to drive a stake into her chest...her now conveniently bare chest. Now, there's a really good reason why the 1930s Dracula films cut away from the image of driving stakes into people's chests. And while most of that reasoning was based on violence, the other half of that is the combination of violence and nudity that in this film quite frankly sexualizes the violence. I might think this is an overreaction to some merely titillating (wipe that smirk off your face, Smedley) exploitation. But then there's the later scene with Murray and Chin Yang.
There's no other way to describe the positioning of bodies in the struggle between the police inspector and the vampire mistress than the position of sexual copulation but with murderous intent on both sides. It's not just the fact that Murray is on top of Chin Yang and she is lying underneath him--they are fully clothed, more or less--but it's the camera angle and the way the situation lingers and continues for much longer than mere melee would demand. It frankly looks more like a rape and in a situation where the man in the "rapist" position is nominally the good guy and the woman in the "victim" position is an evil vampire it's an awkward situation that seems to legitimize any kind of "staking" that Murray is about to deliver. And if it was a simple matter of pinning her down and staking her as soon as possible, the fact that she's a vampire would seem to suffice. But I will say it again, the series of images that can be mistaken for sex lingers for an impossibly long time, and the part where she has a fishnet thrown over her...I'll leave that for some other discussion some other time. Let's just say that this staking was as much too obvious in its metaphor as the one with Jane.
As for the other former victims who are now monsters (all of them women)? Remember the thing from Dracula A.D. 1972 where the vampires can be killed off by running water? Well, what better way to destroy a basement full of vampire women (who are chained to their coffins, mind you) than to open up the spigot of the helpfully placed sprinkler system at the top of the stairs? While at first this might seem to be a case of the writers giving a character a too simple solution for a really big problem, it actually makes sense when you think about the corporate structure of the Denham/Dracula conglomerate and what they're up to. It's not about proliferating vampirism and unleashing hordes of ravenous monsters on the country. Especially if that means unleashing independent female monsters. Dracula here isn't in the business of liberating anybody's sexuality. He's harnessed it, shackled it and turned it into a commodity and lest anybody think there's anything the least bit liberating about it he's put a kill switch in easy reach where he can order the whole operation shut down with a simple sprinkle of water. In that regard, this film has hidden within it a pretty cynical analogue for the very kind of exploitation that I found problematic with the deaths of Jane and Chin Yang. This film is part of the very cynical media co-opting of "liberated" female sexuality. (Look, I'm free to rip open my blouse and get staked in the chest if I choose to do that.) But the vampire girls chained to their coffins have no real agency. They are part of the machine that uses their bodies and keeps their bodies available and which will dispense with them once they are no longer of use. They aren't even free to do the thing that they have been "turned" into desiring on their own volition. They will be "fed" when the company has decided to feed them. Of course, this kind of critique bears all the problems that go with Being the Thing You're Criticizing.
At any rate, that's something I noted about this film that was a bit troubling.
Of course Van Helsing pulls through in the end and with Murray's help saves Jessica (and the rest of the world.) Once again it is the articles of faith that are required to put down the vampire, though here there is no requirement of faith itself, just the articles of faith as if there's a mutual recognition that neither the vampire nor the vampire killer believe in the rituals they are engaging in (does Dracula really think the Sabbath of the Undead holds some sort of special meaning?) but that the objects have acquired the requisite patina of precedent that makes them the mutually agreed upon Things That Will Kill a Vampire Because...even if the vampire killer and the vampire don't really care about what you believe in. Still, a hawthorne bush...that's a nice trick. Not sure why Dracula wouldn't have a serious scent-based radar for the presence of hawthorne (granted, it's not garlic or wolfsbane).
So this is the last of Hammer Dracula films with Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. Not exactly a bang, but I'm not sure I would have liked to see what Dracula 1974 would have looked like. I suspect that it might have looked like Five Easy Pieces or maybe it would have looked like Moonraker, who knows?
If Dracula A.D. 1972 played out like a seventies cop show, then this film played out like a seventies spy thriller. Something like Day of the Jackal or The Eiger Sanction but with vampires and pseudo-satanic rituals. And maybe part of the problem is that the film could have used a more self-conscious mixing of genre that would make the whole thing slightly more coherent.
Cast
D.D. Denham/Count Dracula -- Christopher Lee
Lorrimer Van Helsing -- Peter Cushing
Jessica Van Helsing -- Joanna Lumley
Inspector Murray -- Michael Coles
Torrence -- William Franklyn
Julian Keeley -- Freddie Jones
Colonel Mathews -- Richard Vernon
Chin Yang -- Barbara Yu Ling
Lord Carradine -- Patrick Barr
John Porter -- Richard Mathews
General Sir Arthur Freeborne -- Lockwood West
Jane -- Valerie Van Ost
Hanson -- Maurice O'Connell
Doctor -- Peter Adair
Vampire Girls -- Maggie Fitzgerald, Pauline Peart, Finnuala O'Shannon, Mia Martin
Guard #1-- Marc Zuber
Guard #2 -- Paul Weston
Guard #3 -- Ian Dewar
Guard #4 -- Graham Rees
Commissionaire -- John Harvey
Music by John Cacavas
Cinematography by Brian Probyn
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Disco Dracula's London Groove Thang
Dracula A.D. 1972 (1972)
Directed by Alan Gibson
Screenplay by Don Houghton
Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee back together again, 1972 style. Yeah, I'm willing to pay my Hammer tax and watch this film based on that alone. You know there'll be an obligatory Seventies party scene with some funky music. And maybe Dracula will drive around in a Trans Am.
Okay, so this film starts out in 1872 with Lawrence Van Helsing locked in a deathmatch with Count Dracula on top of a speeding carriage. After the carriage crashes Dracula is caught on a spoke and unfortunately nobody has a "jaws of death" to unimpale him. Van Helsing finishes the job and then dies of his own injuries. And thus the shortest of the Hammer Dracula films draws to a conclusion.
But wait, Dracula has an acolyte--a Dracolyte--who gathers up his remains and secretly buries them at St. Bartolph's Church where Van Helsing is also buried.
And now the story skips ahead by a hundred years. It's 1972 and the fashions are atrocious and nobody really cares because all the cool kids are high as kites that have been put into carry-on luggage and flown to Lisbon. If you've been paying attention (and in 1972 some people may not have been) you'd notice that young Johnny Alucard looks a lot like that Dracolyte who buried Dracula back in 1872. And we see that Lorrimer Van Helsing looks just like his ancestor Lawrence. Weird how genetics works like that. Lucky for her and us Jessica Van Helsing looks nothing like a female Peter Cushing. And I'm pretty sure that even someone who's really high would eventually roll to the fact that Alucard is Dracula spelled backwards. Nobody is really named Alucard. There's only one reason anybody has ever had the name Alucard is because they're trying to be coy about Dracula. If you have a "friend" named Johnny Alucard, he's not your friend. He's a vampire or a vampire wannabe.
And then there's the obligatory party scene featuring the band Stoneground. Heck of a party, isn't it? Really gives you a feel for London in 1972, doesn't it? Now imagine Margaret Thatcher at that party. Now imagine her at that party dressed only in a garland of lilies. Now imagine your dad showing up to that party in an orange sportcoat and yellow and brown plaid pants. That's 1972 in London. Vampires are the least of your problems.
So, simple hippy parties aren't quite exciting enough and thus the young generation turns to black magic for fun. And what better place for some Satanic fun in London than a wrecked old church (St. Bartolph's, naturally.) where you might be able to resurrect Count Dracula and give him a special rebirthday present of one of your "friends." Another piece of advice: friends don't feed friends to their vampire overlords.
The film seems to meander between feeling like it's Beyond the Valley of the Dolls and an episode of the British version of Kojak. I think I just described what the original Kolchak: The Night Stalker was like. Seriously, what kind of self respecting vampire would want to drink someone whose blood reeks of polyester, cocaine and patchouli?
Here's another question: why did the Dracolytes wait a hundred years before trying to bring back Dracula? Were they just too busy with the two world wars to bother unleashing the master of vampires? Was 1972 all that great of a year? Or is it just that the Dracolytes had to be so bored by everything else that they decide to resurrect Dracula the way some bored people decide to go out and buy some cole slaw just to get some fresh air?
In this incarnation Dracula has some serious score settling in mind with Van Helsing. That's why it's really convenient for him that Van Helsing's granddaughter Jessica is hanging out with a hard partying crowd of vampire bait. In 1972 Dracula has an elaborate plan of corrupting Jessica by turning her into his vampire companion. (The ultimate insult of rendering the vampire killer's progeny tainted by vampirism. Yes, it's an analogy for sexual purity. What did you think it was?)
But in the grand tradition of Bond villains Dracula spends too much time dragging his eternally cold feet instead of proceeding with his evil plan.
Van Helsing tracks down Johnny Alucard and kills him the way you would expect to kill a dirty hippy--with a cold shower. Yeah, I said it. Seventies hipster killed by bathing.
Dracula's death by booby trap is a perfect Vietnam era death. The only way it could have been more perfect would have been if Van Helsing had dipped the stakes in feces. Not because it would be more lethal for Dracula, but because it would have been the right level of insult. But that's not Van Helsing's style. He does not lack elegance.
As for Jessica, she is saved from the evil vampire who puts her under his spell and turns her into a mindless minion. In short, she is saved from being a trophy wife married to a jerk who really only wants her in order to punish someone else and so that he can sully her with his touch.
Jessica is also saved from a group of friends who are easily lured by their inquisitiveness/boredom into doing stupid evil things. (Manson Family, anyone?) And she also gets a clean break from her boyfriend who is drained of his blood. How about that for a breakup story? "Yeah, my last boyfriend was killed by a vampire...as were most of my other friends. So, who's up for some tea and sandwiches?"
There's something to be said for the choice of putting a vampire (and especially Dracula, THE vampire) in a contemporary setting. But there's also something to be said for the Victorian Gothic setting. It's apples and oranges in vampire films. I can't help but feel that one of the flavors that makes the Dracula story is the period setting, but I also enjoy the idea of contemporizing the story. Maybe I'd be less ambivalent if it hadn't been set in 1972.
I'll say this, at least there's no real sympathizing with the monster in this film. Dracula is actively in league with evil and his minions not only ally themselves with Satan and Dracula but also commit wanton murder and use the bonds of friendship to lure people to their deaths. This is a vampire you don't mind seeing destroyed in a pit of death for the undead.
Cast
Count Dracula -- Christopher Lee
Lawrence Van Helsing/Lorrimer Van Helsing -- Peter Cushing
Jessica Van Helsing -- Stephanie Beacham
Johnny Alucard -- Christopher Neame
Gaynor Keating -- Marsha Hunt
Laura Bellows -- Caroline Munro
Anna Bryant -- Janet Key
Joe Mitcham -- William Ellis
Bob -- Philip Miller
Greg -- Michael Kitchen
Matron Party Hostess -- Lally Bowers
Charles -- Michael Daly
Crying Matron -- Jo Richardson
Hippy Girl -- Penny Brahms
Hippy Boy -- Brian John Smith
Go Go Dancer -- Flanagan (Maureen Flanagan)
Girl -- Glenda Allen
Boy -- Christopher Morris
Debby Girl -- Jane Anthony
Mrs. Donnelly -- Constance Luttrell
Inspector Murray -- Michael Coles
Detective Sergeant -- David Andrews
Police Surgeon -- Artro Morris
Stoneground -- Stoneground (Tim Barnes, Sal Valentino, John Blakely, Brian Godula, Lynne Hughes, Deirdre La Porte, Cory Lerios, Lydia Mareno, Steve Price, Annie Sampson)
Music by Mike Vickers
Cinematography by Dick Bush
Directed by Alan Gibson
Screenplay by Don Houghton
Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee back together again, 1972 style. Yeah, I'm willing to pay my Hammer tax and watch this film based on that alone. You know there'll be an obligatory Seventies party scene with some funky music. And maybe Dracula will drive around in a Trans Am.
Okay, so this film starts out in 1872 with Lawrence Van Helsing locked in a deathmatch with Count Dracula on top of a speeding carriage. After the carriage crashes Dracula is caught on a spoke and unfortunately nobody has a "jaws of death" to unimpale him. Van Helsing finishes the job and then dies of his own injuries. And thus the shortest of the Hammer Dracula films draws to a conclusion.
But wait, Dracula has an acolyte--a Dracolyte--who gathers up his remains and secretly buries them at St. Bartolph's Church where Van Helsing is also buried.
And now the story skips ahead by a hundred years. It's 1972 and the fashions are atrocious and nobody really cares because all the cool kids are high as kites that have been put into carry-on luggage and flown to Lisbon. If you've been paying attention (and in 1972 some people may not have been) you'd notice that young Johnny Alucard looks a lot like that Dracolyte who buried Dracula back in 1872. And we see that Lorrimer Van Helsing looks just like his ancestor Lawrence. Weird how genetics works like that. Lucky for her and us Jessica Van Helsing looks nothing like a female Peter Cushing. And I'm pretty sure that even someone who's really high would eventually roll to the fact that Alucard is Dracula spelled backwards. Nobody is really named Alucard. There's only one reason anybody has ever had the name Alucard is because they're trying to be coy about Dracula. If you have a "friend" named Johnny Alucard, he's not your friend. He's a vampire or a vampire wannabe.
And then there's the obligatory party scene featuring the band Stoneground. Heck of a party, isn't it? Really gives you a feel for London in 1972, doesn't it? Now imagine Margaret Thatcher at that party. Now imagine her at that party dressed only in a garland of lilies. Now imagine your dad showing up to that party in an orange sportcoat and yellow and brown plaid pants. That's 1972 in London. Vampires are the least of your problems.
So, simple hippy parties aren't quite exciting enough and thus the young generation turns to black magic for fun. And what better place for some Satanic fun in London than a wrecked old church (St. Bartolph's, naturally.) where you might be able to resurrect Count Dracula and give him a special rebirthday present of one of your "friends." Another piece of advice: friends don't feed friends to their vampire overlords.
The film seems to meander between feeling like it's Beyond the Valley of the Dolls and an episode of the British version of Kojak. I think I just described what the original Kolchak: The Night Stalker was like. Seriously, what kind of self respecting vampire would want to drink someone whose blood reeks of polyester, cocaine and patchouli?
Here's another question: why did the Dracolytes wait a hundred years before trying to bring back Dracula? Were they just too busy with the two world wars to bother unleashing the master of vampires? Was 1972 all that great of a year? Or is it just that the Dracolytes had to be so bored by everything else that they decide to resurrect Dracula the way some bored people decide to go out and buy some cole slaw just to get some fresh air?
In this incarnation Dracula has some serious score settling in mind with Van Helsing. That's why it's really convenient for him that Van Helsing's granddaughter Jessica is hanging out with a hard partying crowd of vampire bait. In 1972 Dracula has an elaborate plan of corrupting Jessica by turning her into his vampire companion. (The ultimate insult of rendering the vampire killer's progeny tainted by vampirism. Yes, it's an analogy for sexual purity. What did you think it was?)
But in the grand tradition of Bond villains Dracula spends too much time dragging his eternally cold feet instead of proceeding with his evil plan.
Van Helsing tracks down Johnny Alucard and kills him the way you would expect to kill a dirty hippy--with a cold shower. Yeah, I said it. Seventies hipster killed by bathing.
Dracula's death by booby trap is a perfect Vietnam era death. The only way it could have been more perfect would have been if Van Helsing had dipped the stakes in feces. Not because it would be more lethal for Dracula, but because it would have been the right level of insult. But that's not Van Helsing's style. He does not lack elegance.
As for Jessica, she is saved from the evil vampire who puts her under his spell and turns her into a mindless minion. In short, she is saved from being a trophy wife married to a jerk who really only wants her in order to punish someone else and so that he can sully her with his touch.
Jessica is also saved from a group of friends who are easily lured by their inquisitiveness/boredom into doing stupid evil things. (Manson Family, anyone?) And she also gets a clean break from her boyfriend who is drained of his blood. How about that for a breakup story? "Yeah, my last boyfriend was killed by a vampire...as were most of my other friends. So, who's up for some tea and sandwiches?"
There's something to be said for the choice of putting a vampire (and especially Dracula, THE vampire) in a contemporary setting. But there's also something to be said for the Victorian Gothic setting. It's apples and oranges in vampire films. I can't help but feel that one of the flavors that makes the Dracula story is the period setting, but I also enjoy the idea of contemporizing the story. Maybe I'd be less ambivalent if it hadn't been set in 1972.
I'll say this, at least there's no real sympathizing with the monster in this film. Dracula is actively in league with evil and his minions not only ally themselves with Satan and Dracula but also commit wanton murder and use the bonds of friendship to lure people to their deaths. This is a vampire you don't mind seeing destroyed in a pit of death for the undead.
Cast
Count Dracula -- Christopher Lee
Lawrence Van Helsing/Lorrimer Van Helsing -- Peter Cushing
Jessica Van Helsing -- Stephanie Beacham
Johnny Alucard -- Christopher Neame
Gaynor Keating -- Marsha Hunt
Laura Bellows -- Caroline Munro
Anna Bryant -- Janet Key
Joe Mitcham -- William Ellis
Bob -- Philip Miller
Greg -- Michael Kitchen
Matron Party Hostess -- Lally Bowers
Charles -- Michael Daly
Crying Matron -- Jo Richardson
Hippy Girl -- Penny Brahms
Hippy Boy -- Brian John Smith
Go Go Dancer -- Flanagan (Maureen Flanagan)
Girl -- Glenda Allen
Boy -- Christopher Morris
Debby Girl -- Jane Anthony
Mrs. Donnelly -- Constance Luttrell
Inspector Murray -- Michael Coles
Detective Sergeant -- David Andrews
Police Surgeon -- Artro Morris
Stoneground -- Stoneground (Tim Barnes, Sal Valentino, John Blakely, Brian Godula, Lynne Hughes, Deirdre La Porte, Cory Lerios, Lydia Mareno, Steve Price, Annie Sampson)
Music by Mike Vickers
Cinematography by Dick Bush
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)