 "For years,"learned criticism" and popular opinion have kept these films down. But now, it's time for a new look..."
|
One of the pleasures of horror films is the fact that even the "bad" ones can still have their appeal. Ron Prescott found this out when he discovered some...
By RON PRESCOTT Hello all! I'd like to direct your attention to the room all the way at the end of the hall, past the doors marked "Keep Out," and on past the Gothic portraits on the walls. Yes, that's it, the door marked "Abandon hope,all ye who enter here." This, my friends, is the closet. However, behind this door, you'll not find specters looming in the shadows, nor a gentleman behind the door holding an ax. No, something darker, something more sinister in the corner...A collection of films. Harmless enough... But wait! These aren't just any films. These are the truly cursed vampire films. the "underdogs," the unjustly maligned, the ridiculed, and the buried. Films no one in their right mind would admit to liking, much less defending, right? Wrong! This is my sacred task! For years, "learned criticism" and popular opinion have kept these films down. But now, it's time for a new look. I can't think of any better film to kick this off with than Lust For A Vampire. For years, the most pedantic and pretentious critics have looked scornfully on Hammer's Seventies period, passing brutal judgment on the likes of Satanic Rites Of Dracula and Dracula A.D. 1972 (the latter of which I'll also be covering). While these films were in large part criticized for bringing the vampire legend into a modern, "hip" setting, replete with trendy dialogue and funk guitars on the soundtrack, special vitriol has always been reserved for Lust, even though it features all of Hammer's more traditional, Gothic trappings. The question is, why?
You can't fault the setting; this film mines that "period" vein most richly. In fact, I think it's one of Hammer's most beautiful movies to look at (not counting the obvious virtues of Yutte Stensgaard, Suzanna Leigh, and Pippa Steele). On that note, some critics have pointed out this film's supposedly "locker room" attitude towards sexuality, when, on the contrary, that aspect is most deftly handled. It seems almost playful, as opposed to forced. I like the way this element is toyed with. For example,we have the scenes featuring Mircalla's enthralled would-be lovers moving towards the camera, arms outstretched,and passionately eager, only to see their lasciviousness turn to horror and a scream as their mysterious nocturnal lover shows her true colors (usually leaving this to our imaginations)! This was a good ploy by the filmmakers, because we finally see Mircalla's vampiric act in all its on-camera glory near the end of the film, when she's bloodletting a beautiful brunette victim, and it makes for an horrifically erotic rush. I don't wish to follow the lead of a lot of people and concentrate solely on the erotic element of this film, for there is certainly much more to recommend it. Indeed, I would now like to focus on the performances, two in particular: Ralph Bates as Giles Barton and Michael Johnson as Richard LeStrange. Over the years, it seems Ralph Bates has been the recipient of quite a bit of critical disrespect (that in itself would be another article), all of it unjustified. In Lust For A Vampire, he imbues his slightly perverse history professor with the customary professionalism and quirkiness he brought to all of his roles. Peter Cushing was originally to play the role but bowed out. This is probably for the best, as I think the part worked best with a younger man (though no disrespect to Mr. Cushing!). Bates' male counterpart in the film, Michael Johnson, also deserves high praise. He brings a sophistication and penchant for dry humor that is carried off quite well. It's a shame we didn't see more of him in Hammer films.
I'll be moving on to the next film in a moment but just want to sum up briefly: Lust For A Vampire, one of Hammer's long-time "bastard" offerings, is undeserving of its adverse criticism. It's a solid, wholly enjoyable film featuring all the elements of Hammer Films we know and love, pushed to the hilt. With the passage of time, it's always good to take a look back and brush off the sand. It's gems like this you could uncover! I'm now going to rip away the veneer of shame from another film (and another Hammer), this one being Dracula A.D. 1972. Anyone else would tread warily in defending this one, but my purpose here is to be brave, and so I shall! This film once again finds Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing locking horns in a battle to the death. Only difference is, we're smack dab in the middle of 1970's London! Put aside your prejudices and check the left side of your brain at the door, because you just know this is going to be good.
In criticizing this film, most reviewers seem to take the same tack--comparing this film with the others that have come before. What's the point? You can cynically argue that Hammer opted for the change of setting because they were running out of ideas, but that's moot. There's not a thing in the world wrong with taking your stock characters and changing up their formula. I think in some ways, it invigorates the film. For instance, we're treated to anachronisms like New Scotland Yard butting up against a centuries-old evil, with Michael Coles as Inspector Murray working in tandem with Cushing's Van Helsing. Coles makes for an effective and likable Inspector,and we get to see him again in The Satanic Rites Of Dracula. Another effective scene has Jessica Van Helsing lured to the abandoned nightclub by her now-vampirized boyfriend, in order to be abducted by Johnny Alucard and given to Dracula. I think this is a particularly creepy and effective scene, heightened by Michael Vickers' music score. Indeed, his score is one of the films' real trump cards, conveying the modern setting, but also providing chills when needed.
One thing common to Hammer's films was a dramatic and exciting climax, and Dracula A.D. 1972 is no exception. While Cushing and Lee's showdown in St. Bartolph's church might not quite be up to the standard of, say, Horror Of Dracula, it still gets the pulse racing the way those endings always did. From the moment we realize the hypnotized Jessica has pulled the silver knife from Dracula's heart, to Van Helsing sending his vampire foe tumbling into the stake pit, we've been treated to an exciting end to this worthy entry in Hammer's cycle. The final entry in my "revisionist exhumation" is Billy The Kid Vs. Dracula. This is one film that is nothing short of a moving comic book (a fine goal for any film to aspire to!). Let's open the coffin lid and take a look inside...Here we have John Carradine's return to the role of Dracula, not having played the part since Universal's House Of Dracula.The more aristocratic quality he brought to the earlier characterization might not be in full effect, but this time around, he certainly brings more chutzpah! Indeed, I would wonder if he was sober in every scene, what with his noted penchant for the bottle. But at any rate, the Carradine legacy lives on!
Complementing Mr. Carradine's histrionics are the cinematic stylings of William "One-Shot" Beaudine, a member of the great B-director pantheon. Now,a vampire western had been attempted before (Universal's Curse Of The Undead), but Beaudine builds on the more novel aspects of this little sub-genre, like six-shooters being pulled and firing on Dracula while flying in bat form!
You have to compliment touches such as these. It's long been my opinion that budget constraints or awkward execution shouldn't necessarily be held against a film--it's what's conveyed in scenes like the aforementioned one! The beauty shines through regardless. Now, this film won't win any Oscars. I don't look at this film or any others in that narrow sense, and it's just as well that it's reviled by so many. Until they start to understand that Billy The Kid Vs. Dracula (and films of its like) should be looked at purely as what they are, and understood at that level, the pretentious among us might just as well keep basking in "mainstream" offerings and pseudo-intellectual criticism. That'll complete my little foray into the "horror film closet". I hope I've left a favorable impression, and shown some needed light on unjustly dismissed films. Remember, don't let popular opinion sway you from a potential film discovery. Much is gained from a retrospective, and the passage of time always forces new perspectives. Why not venture into your own "film closet"? You never know what waits in the shadows... Although Ron's picks aren't to everyone's taste, he does make a good case for not overlooking these forsaken "fang" films. Com'on, give them a try! Cheers! Article copyright Ron Prescott |
