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

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)

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