Pages

Showing posts with label Christopher Lee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christopher Lee. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Christopher Lee takes over TCM on July 22



Turner Classic Movies is interrupting it's regular schedule on Monday, June 22, for a special marathon tribute to Christopher Lee. With almost 300 film and television credits going back to the 1940s, it's impossible to piece together an all-encompassing retrospective of Lee's career. Believe it or not, there's an entire generation of fans that only know him from the STAR WARS and LORD OF THE RINGS movies.

Still, TCM did a pretty good job of capturing the highlights of Lee's middle years. Hammer is well represented here, as is his transition into mainstream American movies with his turn as "Rochefort" in THE THREE MUSKETEERS and THE FOUR MUSKETEERS. The three DRACULA movies included in the marathon are possibly the best of the bunch that starred Lee, but the real gem here is HORROR EXPRESS. It's easily the best movie ever about a homicidal psychic caveman alien monster.

The new schedule for Monday, June 22 will be:



THE MUMMY  (1959)
6:15 AM
The TCM summary: "A resurrected mummy stalks the archaeologists who defiled his tomb."

Why you should watch it: "Lee, placed at what some would regard as a disadvantage, draws from his early training as a mime artist to evoke pathos in his role as the monster; with torment and anguish peering out from his bandaged visage." Diabolique Magazine



THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957)
8:00 AM
The TCM summary: "A scientist's attempts to create life unleash a bloodthirsty monster."

Why you should watch it: "When I went along to the cinema as a teenager with groups of friends, if we saw the logo of Hammer Films we knew it would be a very special picture. I'll never forget going to a midnight screening at the New York Paramount of THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN in 1957, the day before it opened. The audience loved it, and there was a graphic quality to it that was totally uncalled for and was extremely endearing to us at about the age of fifteen."  Martin Scorsese, SCORSESE ON SCORSESE


HORROR OF DRACULA (1958)
9:30 AM
The TCM summary: "The legendary count tries to turn his enemies' women into his bloodthirsty brides."

Why you should watch it: "Without being overtly Freudian, the film is certainly more obviously aware of the sexual undertones in Dracula’s attacks on helpless women, who seem to enjoy being ravished by the rapacious vampire. His approach to his female victims, who now consciously await his caresses (rather than sinking into a hypnotic stupor), emphasizes the erotic as never before. The fact that Dracula is less subtly seductive and more physically overpowering in these non-verbal attacks (we never see him talk to the women whose bedrooms he invades) lends an almost sado-masochistic air to his nighttime predations."  Cinefantastique Online



DRACULA, PRINCE OF DARKNESS (1966)
11:00 AM
The TCM summary: "Four travelers unwittingly revive the bloodsucking count."

Why you should watch it: "While it lacks the classic narrative structure and stunning art direction of Horror of Dracula, Lee's second vampire film conveys a genuine sense of unease that erupts into pure horror at the first appearance of the count; he descends on his victim hissing with teeth bared like some kind of wild, ravenous animal. His predatory behavior carries an overt sexual threat here and his presence is made all the more disturbing by the fact that he never speaks one word of dialogue the entire film." — Jeff Stafford, TCM



DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE (1969)
12:45 PM
The TCM summary: "Dracula goes after the niece of the monsignor who destroyed his castle."

Why you should watch it: "Dracula Has Risen from the Grave stands out from other vampire films because the role of religion—no, make that the role of faith—is made central to the proceedings." — DVD Verdict


HORROR EXPRESS (1972)
2:30 PM
The TCM summary: "An anthropologist discovers a frozen monster which he believes may be the Missing Link."

Why you should watch it: "The finished result is an atmospheric, original and very entertaining film, and one of Spanish horror cinema’s best works. Ironically enough, it’s also the kind of film that British studios were finding it increasingly difficult to produce." — Electric Sheep Magazine


THE THREE MUSKETEERS (1973)
4:00 PM
The TCM summary: "A country boy joins the famed musketeers and fights to protect the queen's name."

Why you should watch it: "It's rewarding to see Charlton Heston back in period costume, effortlessly menacing as a behind-the-scenes villain, though still a fleshed-out character, Cardinal Richelieu. Note how aged he appears to be, knowing that this is inbetween his 'action man' roles of The Omega Man and Earthquake. His brief sparrings with Christopher Lee are electric. An important role for Lee, as he tried hard to escape his Dracula typecasting, demonstrating he can act with the best of them, swordfight like a pro, and effortlessly play a drole, romantic baddie with Faye Dunaway as his lover." — Black Hole Reviews


THE FOUR MUSKETEERS (1975)
6:00 PM
The TCM summary: "To maintain control of the French monarchy, Cardinal Richelieu kidnaps D'Artagnan's true love."

Why you should watch it: "The same mixture of teenybopper naughtiness, acne spiciness, contrived tastelessness and derring don’t as found in the earlier film are laid on with the same deft trowel herein." — Variety

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Sir Christopher Lee dies at 93


Christoper Lee had a way of making any movie more entertaining, at least for the moments when he was on screen.

Despite his towering, leading-man presence, Lee tended to play supporting characters. Even when his character's name was in the movie's title (I'm looking at you, Dracula), Lee was happy lurking around in the background as his increasingly younger co-stars tried to steal the spotlight. They almost never succeeded.

The older Lee got, the less reason directors needed to include him in their movies. Filmmakers were delighted to just put Lee in front of the camera and let him do his thing. There was absolutely no reason for him to have appeared in Tim Burton's DARK SHADOWS, but nobody walked out of the theater complaining about his cameo. Count Dooku might be the most underwritten villain to ever have a speaking part in a movie, but nobody thought Lee's presence was one of the faults of the STAR WARS prequels. The guy was a dynamo: While most people tend to ease into retirement in their golden years, Christoper Lee was having sword fights with a Muppet and singing on heavy metal records.

Reports are circulating this morning that Lee has died, which just feels impossible.

Friday, April 24, 2015

Monster Serial: DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE

By FRANK JAY GRUBER

Of all the classic monster archetypes, the one most dependent on the forms of belief is the vampire. Belief or disbelief in the creature’s existence is often pivotal to the plot, there is a realignment of each victim’s faith and allegiance after each new seductive attack, and the fiend suffers from its vulnerability to the religious iconography of the crucifix when backed up by strong conviction.  While, for example, the Frankenstein monster or the Black Lagoon’s creature just attack victims and are defeated in straightforward fashion, vampire movies usually deal with the interplay of credence and conviction. Nowhere is this more in evidence than in 1968’s DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE, the third film in the Hammer series starring Christopher Lee.

The story begins with a flashback sequence set during the notorious count’s previous reign of terror in 1966’s Dracula - Prince of Darkness, which ended with the undead being’s plunge into the icy waters outside his castle. A young altar boy rides up to his village church one morning and discovers blood covering the bell pull as he attempts to sound the call for mass. The priest then visits the belfry and discovers a murdered young woman hanging upside down within the mouth of the bell, her life fluids draining and dripping down the rope. “Dear God!” he exclaims, “When shall we be free of his evil?”

In the narrative’s present day, one year later, the same priest says mass before his altar boy in an otherwise empty church, then quickly adjourns to the nearest inn to start drinking. The behavior of the landlord and villagers in the room indicate the priest’s morning visit and the early start to his imbibing are by no means unusual. Times are hard for the local parish. The events last year left their place of worship desecrated and the villagers are reluctant to enter. The deserted church sits metaphorically and literally in the shadow of Dracula’s mountaintop castle and the evil it represents.

The solid and curly mutton-chopped actor Rupert Davies arrives. He plays a travelling monsignor, the priest’s denominational superior, who quickly assesses the situation and chastises the man for his inaction. Now that Dracula is vanquished, why hasn’t the priest exorcised and spiritually cleansed both the church and the castle? The answer, we can plainly see, is that the man is paralyzed with terror of the supernatural evil. He is quaking in his cassock, shaking in his vestments. His frailty and fragility are character flaws which becomes integral as the tale unfolds.

“There is no evil in the house of God!” The monsignor insists sternly, before taking his cleric aside.

“You can’t imagine what it’s like,” the priest insists, pleading with his eyes.

Clearly there are different gradations of belief operational here. The older man’s clarity, moral strength and the forceful impregnability of his faith far outstrip the poor priest’s.

The monsignor orders his subordinate to meet him the next morning a half hour before dawn to begin what will be a daylong trek to the castle. Although it’s near enough to cast a shadow—and even though it’s accessible by horse and cart both in previous films and at the end of this movie—they must inexplicably journey all day through the fog-shrouded forest and climb the rocky mountain on foot to reach it. This is as much a symbolic journey as a physical one. The pilgrims must progress. The monsignor carries the church’s huge golden Gothic cross strapped to his back like a knapsack. The priest, out of shape from his year of depressed inactivity and drunkenness, can’t keep up with his superior even though the man appears 30 years older and as many pounds heavier. As sunset nears the cleric cannot go on. The monsignor takes pity on his weakness and continues up to the castle without him. As soon as he is out of sight, the priest pulls out a bottle and resumes his drinking.


Good use is made of echo as the monsignor stands at the castle door and begins chanting his Latin exorcism. Dark clouds roll in and lightning fills the sky. The priest, somewhere down the side of the precipice, is scared by the cosmic forces at work and starts to flee. He trips and tumbles down the mountainside, knocking himself out and cutting open his forehead. He lands atop an ice-covered stream, his impact cracking the surface and exposing the body of Christopher Lee’s Count Dracula. As the winds pick up and the monsignor attaches the giant golden crucifix to the castle door, far below the blood trickles from the priest’s forehead directly into the mouth of the hibernating vampire. Its lips start to move as it swallows.

Exorcism over, the monsignor descends and returns to the village. The count, meanwhile, has woken up and towers behind the priest as he regains consciousness. Oddly, the cleric first glimpses the vampire standing behind him by seeing its reflection in the water. This is an odd gaffe, since the undead cannot traditionally be seen in reflections.

Dracula discovers his castle has now been reverse-desecrated with a huge gleaming cross attached to the front door. He demands the priest, whose weak will he easily enslaves, tell him who perpetrated this atrocity. The vampire learns it was the monsignor and vows revenge.

 All of this, which transpires during the first 22 minutes of the film, is merely the setup. When the monsignor returns home to the township of Kleinenberg, the other main characters are introduced. His household consists of his dead brother’s wife Anna and his niece Maria (Veronica Carlson), a twentyish blonde with obvious endowments whose appearance virtually screams “Hammer Film vixen” from the moment we see her. It is through seeking to destroy her purity that the vampire will pursue his revenge on the monsignor.




Maria is in love with Paul, a young scholar played by Barry Andrews, who resembles The Who’s Roger Daltrey enough to make viewers uncomfortable. When we first see him he is dressed in his finest suit to have dinner at Maria’s and meet her mother for the first time (he doesn’t know that her uncle the monsignor has arrived back home yet). He foolishly allows himself be talked into playing a college boys’ bar game, where a tall glass of frothy ale is balanced on the handle of a broomstick so that the top of the glass touches the cafe’s dirty ceiling beam—because beer presumably tastes better with wood splinters and dust. The person clutching the handle must turn in circles and drink their own ale at the same time.  The inevitable happens and Paul spills the fragrant brew all over his suit. He has no time to change, so he ends up going to Maria’s birthday dinner this way.

Both this slapstick and the comic interactions with his irascible but paternal boss Max fall flat, but the beer dousing and resultant aroma do contribute to the young man’s uneasiness as he unexpectedly meets Maria’s prim and proper uncle for the first time and their worldviews collide. Paul is a second class pastry cook but a pragmatic scholar, and while the year the film takes place is never specified (although the date on the coffin Dracula steals is 1905), in the real world it is 1968—two years after Time magazine’s cover notoriously asked if God was dead. The youth is a fervent atheist, and Monsignor Ernst by nature and profession most assuredly is not. Paul is, however, a young man of noble and admirable character. We know this because in John Elder’s script he helpfully describes himself as “young, hard-working, good-looking (and) abstemious” in a conversation with his boss.
 
“What I don’t understand is what you hope to get out of those books of yours,” Max grouches amiably.

“What life’s about, something of The Truth,” Paul replies. He may not be on a magic bus, but we can call this Daltrey lookalike The Seeker.

The dinner party with the monsignor starts off pleasantly enough. The young man’s earnest manner impresses Ernst, who proclaims “Not enough people say what they really mean these days. Many people speak only to impress, not stopping to think if what they say is really true.”

When he is queried as to which church he goes to, Maria quickly tries to make excuses. She says he is very busy with his baking and studying. Paul, not carrying if people will try to put him d-d-down, will have none of it. He is forthright. The truth will set him free. “I don’t go to church, sir.”

He’s not trying to cause a b-b-big  s-s-sensation, but Ernst reacts with horror. “You’re not a Protestant, are you?”

No such luck. “I’m an atheist, sir,” says Paul.

“You mean you deny the existence of God?” The Monsignor is stunned.

“I don’t deny it. I just don’t believe it. It’s my own opinion, sir.” Paul replies, revealing both his heartfelt conviction and that he may not have taken a class in Logic just yet.

He offers to leave and the mother, Anna, understandably says that might be best. She doesn’t mention it, but we know this is Ernst’s first night back after a long trip hiking up and down mountains, exorcising the home of a vampire, etc. Putting a stake through an atheist may be his next instinctual act. Better he gets more rest and settles down.

Paul lives upstairs in Max’s cafe, where he also does his baking and beer balancing. He goes home from Maria’s and gets drunk. He’s completely frustrated, having simply spoken with honesty and still coming into conflict with not only the monsignor’s beliefs, but his very profession. Using the interconnected rooftops of Kleinenberg as a private highway, Maria visits him to make amends for her uncle’s reaction and see that he’s okay. Supposed hilarity ensues as she and the barmaid with a heart of gold (talk about archetypes!) help him into bed. “What have you done with my legs?” Wah wah.

The rooftops see a lot of traffic. Not only do characters use them to commute back and forth, but there is also a memorable chase and confrontation a reel or two later as the monsignor interrupts an attack by Dracula and pursues him. This is a very symbolic film, and the action operates on several planes, both physical and spiritual. All through the story the local residents of Kleinenberg have no idea anything supernatural is going on. The only people Dracula’s presence affects are those who work at the inn and those living at the monsignor’s house. As far as the rest of town is concerned, nothing out of the ordinary takes place. The great spiritual and demonic contest takes place beyond their awareness, at a different level. It might just as well be a normal Tuesday.

In brisk succession, Dracula and his corrupted priest arrive in town, the vampire bites and enslaves the kindly barmaid, and through her influence the priest rents a room at the inn and stashes the master’s coffin/bunk deep in the basement in a huge unused larder. Director Freddie Francis keeps things moving along at a rapid pace, and the action never slows down during the 92 minute film.

Although the barmaid is vampified and destroyed, Maria is only bitten once, in her own bed. The director manages a nice touch as she grabs the arm of her doll during the bite, but shoves it away a moment later before it ends—effectively pushing away her innocence. The monsignor later examines her neck and immediately realizes what is happening. He delves into his books to find out what must be done to thwart his undead foe. After interrupting the creature’s second attack he chases him across the rooftops and is waylaid by the priest. “You!” he exclaims, as the man strikes him down with a heavy object.

After crawling along the gables and awnings to get home, the monsignor has no strength left. Maria’s mother Anna helps him over the railing and back into the house, but it is clear he is dying. He entreats Anna to fetch Paul. She is amazed. Paul? The atheist? Yes, Paul. He obviously cares for Maria and may be her one best hope for protection.

Paul comes round at once. Unexpectedly and impulsively, he brings along the inn’s lodger—the enslaved priest who happens to be the enemy’s manservant. Monsignor Ernst tells Paul that Maria is being stalked by a vampire. Paul accepts this truth with a perfectly straight face. These books of the monsignor’s will tell him what to do, but he should swear in the name of the Lord that he will protect her. Paul cannot do this. His atheism again gets in the way. Instead, he says he will give his word. Ernst realizes that will have to be enough. Regardless of the disparity in their worldviews, the men are united in their love for Maria. The old man looks up, catches sight of the priest who attacked him standing in the room, and dies before he can utter a recrimination or warning.

Drafting the priest to help him by translating the Latin books aloud, Paul spreads garlic around doorframes and does the traditional things to ward off vampiric attack. It is not clear why the priest goes along with this at first, since he’s still under the power of Dracula. Surely he would not willingly aid in putting these talismans in place to ward him off. It is the first sign that the priest may be experiencing his own spiritual struggle. He knows helping perpetuate the evil is wrong, yet his will is so weak he cannot resist for long. This becomes apparent when he slugs Paul from behind and tries to remove the protective cross from Maria’s chest.

Only stunned, Paul wakes in time to stop him. He realizes the priest has been dancing with the devil in the pale moonlight, to employ a Jokerism. “What are you trying to do?...You, a priest!” He forces the weak willed man to take him to Dracula’s lair. Paul successfully plunges a large stake into the sleeping vampire’s chest, but it doesn’t kill him. “Pray! You must pray!” the priest exclaims. Belief, more than in any other film, is here essential to kill the monster. Paul still cannot do this. All he has effectively done is awoken his enemy. Dracula pulls out the stake and flees, dodging a shovelful of flaming coals from the bakery oven.


A nightgowned Maria seeks out Dracula on the rooftop. The priest takes her and the sleeping vampire by cart to his homeland. While the priest drives, the entranced Maria is in back literally fondling the coffin—another unusual but effective choice by the director. These touches combine to depict the moral corruption the creature’s power has. After it awakes they have to walk some distance through the woods and hills, and Maria’s bare feet are clearly cut up by the terrain, but they obviously ascend to the castle in considerably less time than it took the monsignor and the priest earlier in the film. The hours of night are shorter and no representational purpose will be achieved by drawing out the journey this time.

The vampire has Maria remove the giant golden crucifix from the castle door and hurl it over the stone railing. It lands upright far below between the rocks. Now its revenge is absolutely complete. Not only is the monsignor dead, but his beautiful niece is completely under its power and has restored its ability to enter the property. Dracula — and by extension evil — has triumphed.
This essay is one of dozens featured in our new
book, "Taste the Blood of Monster Serial."

Yet Paul is a man of his word. He vowed to protect Maria and has followed them from Kleinenberg. He shields Maria from the undead monster and Dracula grabs him. Together they tumble over the rampart, Paul grabbing a tree branch to save himself but his opponent falling squarely on the upper arm of the golden cross below. It pierces his back, protruding out of his chest. This may be the most memorable image of any Hammer Dracula film, as the impaled vampire struggles helplessly, blood dripping from his eyes.

The priest, in the same echo-enriched voice the monsignor used earlier to exorcise the castle, prays to the heavens in Latin and Dracula is destroyed. With yet another memorable visual flourish, director Francis shows us his cloak lying at the foot of the cross — a reverse evil image that might resonate with those who know what the centurions gambled over thousands of years ago. The cleric has found the strength to do what is right. Finally his faith has triumphed over his enslaved will. At last he has done what the monsignor asked him to do at the beginning of the film.

Paul witnesses all of this. Maria is free. As these two people bearing biblical names stand holding one another after evil has been vanquished, Paul can no longer doubt the spiritual reality of unseen powers. He now believes. This former atheist makes the sign of the cross and the film ends.

Peter Cushing, who often starred alongside Christopher Lee as Professor Van Helsing, found Hammer Films—for all their colorful gore and graphic evil—to be intensely moral. This resonated with his personal faith, and explained why he continued to make movies about monstrous events.

“It’s not His will that has caused disasters throughout the ages, but man’s disobedience and disregard. But he knows the human race will eventually learn what is right and what is wrong, suffering in the process,” Cushing said in the pages of Famous Monsters magazine. “Faith will sustain us during that journey...if we will let it.”

This is the key to his portrayal of Van Helsing, and indeed supplies the underlying message behind most Hammer horror tales. The filmmakers seem to suggest an ultimate good which shall emerge triumphant over evil — provided the protagonists display certitude and resolution.

The vampire is more dependent on, and vulnerable to, belief than any other cinematic monster. As this film tells us, and so memorably depicts, its evil can hardly be defeated without it. 

Belief — and vigilance, lest evil return.

FRANK JAY GRUBER In addition to his freelance writing and editing gigs, Frank Jay Gruber teaches literature, composition and online course development at Bergen Community College in New Jersey. He sometimes covers New York and Philadelphia area events for TrekMovie.com, appears on convention panels and writes for genre websites like The Collinsport Historical Society. CNN interviewed him about Star Trek in his collectible-covered lair and consulted him about Dark Shadows after Jonathan Frid’s death in 2012. You can read his extremely infrequent musings at TheWearyProfessor.com and follow him on Twitter @FrankJayGruber.

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Monster Serial: THE WICKER MAN, 1973

Hello, boils and ghouls! October is upon us and that means one thing: HALLOWEEN! While most holidays get a measly day or two of formal recognition, orthodox Monster Kids prefer to celebrate it in the tradition of our people: By watching tons of horror movies. This month at THE COLLINSPORT HISTORICAL SOCIETY, we're going to be discussing some of our favorites every day until Halloween. So, put on your 3-D spex, pop some popcorn and turn out the lights .... because we're going to the movies!


By PATRICK McCRAY

Today is 9/11; that's a good day to write about THE WICKER MAN.

In the film, a devoutly religious — virginal, in fact — Scottish policeman (THE EQUALIZER, himself, Edward Woodward) answers an anonymous letter beseeching him to visit a remote Scottish island and search for a missing girl.  The island is known for its private community and uncharacteristically robust fruit.  The detective quickly finds that the populace are dedicated, sybaritic pagans, eagerly awaiting May Day.  (Not Grace Jones, in this case.)  As he follows the confounding trail, our hero discovers that due to crop failure, a human sacrifice is called for by their religion, and he alone fits the bill.  There was no kidnapping.  Instead, it was an elaborate scheme to lead him to the island and then into a gigantic, wicker stature in which he's roasted alive by a jubilant community who matches his dying religious hymn with their anthem song of rebirth.

When I show the movie to groups, I get two reactions.  Those on the more deistic-to-atheistic scale usually explode enthusiastically at the powerful and on-point message that's just unfolded.  The more religious the audience, the quieter they get.


Holy books talk of martyrs, but we never see them in everyday life... unless we're branding them as terrorists.  I don't think the meaning of religious martyrdom really hits home unless you see it in a film like THE WICKER MAN.  With the 9/11 terrorists, the discussion often takes a political direction as scrutiny is moved off of Islam, and that may be correct.  Well, there's nothing (pardon me, Marxist scholars) political in THE WICKER MAN.  It just shows a faith-based initiative taken to a logical extreme.

I don't know the exact inner monologue of the more religious audience members, but I think they may be (perhaps unconsciously) kinda scared.  I don't say that in cruelty.  For the less religious of us, people doing things out of faith can be very unsettling.  Swell, it's curing the sick one day.  But what could it be tomorrow?  This film provides a fine mirror for that fear.  I'm not expecting everyone to go all Hitchens due to the film, but if the more myopic are a tad less myopic as a result, the movie has used horror as a very constructive tool.

And yes, myopia comes from many sources, not all of them being religion.  Grand lists could be made about the link between horror and myopia on any number of subjects.  A favorite horror film of mine is OLEANNA, which deals with  the dangers of other forms of myopic thinking.  But this is a film about religion.

Still, I don't find anyone storming away from THE WICKER MAN.  Everyone seems to like it, although it may take them a bit of time to recover.  It speaks deep, human truths with a demented clarity.  The film is charming, witty, highly erotic, and paced like lightning.  It has so many songs that a friend of mine successfully argued that it could be considered a musical.  Woodward's protagonist is a stiff-necked grouch who is easy to love, and watching him match wits with Christopher Lee's liberated and charming island leader is a joyous melee sure to put a goofy grin on anyone's face.  Plus, there are cameos aplenty by cinema faves like Britt Ekland (who plays a mean wall in the most unforgettable musical number in teen-guy-stumbling-across-this-on-cable history), Ingrid Pitt, Diane Cilento, and one of England's great "hey it's that guy" performers, Aubrey Morris.


Most importantly, it doesn't have Nicholas Cage, although I encourage you to see his version afterward.  It does a wonderful job of making you appreciate just how many things that director Robin Hardy and author Anthony "The Guy Who Wrote SLEUTH" Shaffer mastered.

(Editor's Note: In order to hit our movie-a-day target throughout the month of October, many of these pieces were written well in advance. This particular column was written Sept. 11, 2013. — Wallace)

PATRICK McCRAY is a well known comic book author who resides in Knoxville, Tenn., where he's been a drama coach and general nuisance since 1997. He has a MFA in Directing and worked at Revolutionary Comics and on the early days of BABYLON 5, and is a frequent contributor to The Collinsport Historical Society. You can find him at The Collins Foundation.

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Terror Bytes!


* Rialto Pictures has announced the U.S. release of THE WICKER MAN - FINAL CUT, the definitive version of Robin Hardy’s 1973 thriller of pagan worshippers on a remote Scottish island. Famously known as CHRISTOPER LEE's favorite film (at least, among those he's appeared in) THE WICKER MAN has been released in several edits since its original release, with the "lost" footage presumably languishing in an unidentified film vault. I can't even imagine what this footage will add to the final film, but Rialto has my attention. The company will roll out the restored version beginning Sept. 27 at IFC Center, New York City, with runs in Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington and other cities throughout the fall.

* A re-mastered edition of THE MONSTER CLUB is coming to DVD and Blu-ray (!) on Oct. 1. It's an oddity, even among VINCENT PRICE's already strange list of credits. Clearly inspired by the "creature cantina" in STAR WARS, the film is an anthology of tales told by Price while having drinks in a secret club for monsters. Also appearing are DONALD PLEASANCE, JOHN CARRADINE, SIMON WARD and STUART WHITMAN. It's a cool little movie.

* JEFFERSON TWILIGHT, the "Blacula Hunter" from VENTURE BROS., will be available as an action figure in 2014. He's paired with PETE WHITE for reasons I can't even begin to speculate about.

* ROB ZOMBIE's latest film, THE LORDS OF SALEM, will be out on home video Sept. 3. I still haven't seen the film, but won a signed plate for the novelization a few months back. Based on my experience with the novel (written by Zombie with B.K. EVENSON) I can't really recommend the film. The story made little sense and was polluted with the usual Rob Zombie almost dialogue ... but, if SUSPIRIA is evidence of anything, it's that a movie doesn't need a functional narrative in order to "word."



* PAC-MAN meets THE SHINING, by the artist known as MR. WHAITE.

Monday, December 17, 2012

Vampires 101: Dracula A.D.1972


DRACULA A.D.1972 (1972)
Starring: Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, Stephanie Beacham, Christopher Neame
Directed by: Alan Gibson


WHAT'S IT ALL ABOUT, ALFIE? Damn, that's a lot of numbers in the headline. It looks like a math problem. Anyway, Count Dracula is resurrected in the swinging '70s by a bunch of horny young hedonists. Bad shit ensues. 

WHAT'S IT REALLY ABOUT? Old people are scared of young people, which was the theme of a LOT of movies in the late '60s/early '70s. When DRACULA A.D.1972 was released, some people over the age of 40 couldn't tell the difference between The Beatles, The Manson Family and The Brady Bunch, and this panic quickly found its way to the silver screen in different ways. Some of the more interesting were the "Devil Child" films of the 1970s, such as THE EXORCIST, THE OMEN, etc. Where those movies played fast and loose with the subtext, DRACULA A.D.1972 wears its terror of youth on its sleeve. The Moral of the Story: If kids don't quit with the sex, drugs and rock and roll, Dracula is going to kill their asses.

DRACULA A.D.1972 is about a lot of things, but story really isn't one of them. The movie is a pandering attempt to make a hip, "modern" film for the youth market, and it works best when it totally fails. A movie made by old people who really don't understand young people, in some ways its more a film of its time than its soulmates, PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE and THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW, because it serves as an unintended commentary its contemporary counterculture. In fact, the character of Count Dracula is almost beside the point in this film.


Interestingly, the movie also has the habit of lingering a little too long on the cleavage of its young female stars. This wouldn't be a problem if it didn't have such an authoritative tone, making the movie come across like the creepy uncle who's always bitching about "These Kids Today" while also ogling every young lady within eye shot.

DRACULA A.D.1972 begins with a mindfuck of epic proportions. Peter Cushing, reprising his role as Van Helsing, slays Dracula after a quick fight scene atop a racing carriage. His enemy vanquished, Van Helsing promptly dies, robbing the movie of both its hero and its villain during the first five minutes.

Audiences should rightfully have felt a little confused at the start of DRACULA A.D.1972. The opening has the hallmarks of a "... previously in DRACULA" segment to remind viewers how the previous film ended, only this is an entirely new bit of footage. It's safe to assume Dracula persisted in returning from the grave so many times that we missed a movie or two in the interim since 1970's SCARS OF DRACULA.


The world had changed quite a bit since Hammer made its first Dracula film in the late '50s. By 1972, the Comics Code Authority had been amended to allow for vampires, werewolves and other monsters, while DARK SHADOWS had spent several year giving American audiences daily doses of creature features for free. The original Bram Stoker novel went into the public domain in Europe in 1962, meaning anyone could make their own Dracula movie. Even Hammer was helping to dilute its own brand with movies like COUNTESS DRACULA, THE VAMPIRE LOVERS and THE LEGEND OF THE 7 GOLDEN VAMPIRES.

So, a change was inevitable.

WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS MOVIE? In addition to all the Dracula-come-lately vampires that were invading popular culture, Hammer was having an increasingly difficult time convincing Christoper Lee to return for sequels. The series had to adapt to survive, and that sense of desperation pervades DRACULA A.D.1972, but in a good way. Desperation isn't the worst motive to ever inspire a movie. In the case of DRACULA A.D.1972 it produced a lively, bugnuts motion picture that's hard not to love. It's like someone took glam rock, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, Oscar Wilde, slasher movies, REEFER MADNESS and gothic horror and made a Banana Split Sundae of Insanity. 


While the cinematography is inconsistent, it's usually a visually interesting film, shot in bright, lurid colors that hint at SUSPIRIA a few years later. DRACULA A.D.1972 also boasts a few good performances, not only from Hammer stalwart Peter Cushing as the latest Van Helsing to get saddled with the chore of kicking vampire ass, but Christopher Neame, as well. As Bowie-esque "Johnny Alucard" (yes, they went there) he steals the movie as a fey satanist manipulating everyone to achieve a very specific goal. He's just as charming as he needs to be in the film, stopping shy of making Alucard romantic or sympathetic. He's not only the real villain of the film, but the real star, as well.

IS IT TIME TO STOP TALKING ABOUT IT? DRACULA A.D.1972 is a time capsule from another world, and it depends on your interest in the period. By 1972 audiences had already seen tons of "modern" vampire stories and this movie still sticks closely to the Hammer formula despite its groovy pretenses. Still, it's a blast watching the formula play play out in a contemporary setting, and it adds a dose of realism to Hammer's dreamy romanticism. It's a singular film worth searching out.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...