 |
|
|
Some months back we ran a piece comparing the two Dr. Phibes movies, in which the sequel came up short. But that sequel has its defenders, as you will read in...
By RON PRESCOTT This article has been written as a response to "Love Means Never Having To Say You're Ugly," the feature written by Joseph Romano that has recently published here at HORROR-WOOD (June 2000 issue). The prevailing opinion of his article is that Dr. Phibes Rises Again is a vastly inferior sequel to the original The Abominable Dr. Phibes. Now, as is often the case, I tend to champion many films that I feel aren't given their due, and I will now be turning my attention towards this undervalued sequel to a brilliant camp classic...and I feel Dr. Phibes Rises Again is just as brilliant. My purpose is not to be derogatory towards Mr. Romano, but I feel some of his critique lies in a misunderstanding of the first film, and of the Phibes character himself. I would like to start with a "personality overview" of the character of Anton Phibes. The first film establishes Phibes as a romantic, cultured man, most likely with the very sensitive soul of an artist, and the death of his beloved would have been too much for his sensitive heart to bear. I also feel that he and his late wife, Victoria, lived almost in their own separate reality, happily far away from mundane reality.
Dr. Phibes is a man not enchained by conventional thought or mores. He lives in a world of his own making. Whether from upbringing or due to the cataclysmic events that shattered his life, he also views the world in a very stripped down, black-and-white way. To that end, I think he would view anyone who transgressed against him or his beloved Victoria in any way as "guilty." This provides the rationale for the murders committed in The Abominable Dr. Phibes, but also for those committed in Dr. Phibes Rises Again! Joseph Romano claimed that Phibes' murders in the second film were motiveless and lacked creativity. But I think my overview of Phibes refutes that.
In Phibes' view, he would be equally justified in killing the men who would take away his and Victoria's prospects of eternal life, as he would in killing the men who originally "took her" away from him. It is all the same to Anton Phibes, and I think that if you view the second film from that perspective, it will make sense. While on the subject of Phibes' transgressors, I must now comment on his wonderful protagonist from the second film, Darius Biederbeck. I think Mr. Romano's article illustrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the Biederbeck character. He states that Biederbeck was engaged in nothing but selfish pursuit of immortality, forsaking everyone for it, even his beloved Diana. But this is not true!
It is made clear in the sequel that Biederbeck greatly loves Diana, and that ultimately he desires immortality so as to spend eternity with her-but also to ward off his impending doom, because he knows he'll die if he doesn't get more serum. Robert Quarry's performance in this film is intense and wonderful, and Biederbeck makes for an almost ruthless and dogged protagonist for Phibes. Lastly, if you need any more proof of Biederbeck's devotion to Diana, simply view the climax, as he ultimately forsakes his own good to save Diana from being impaled by rows of golden snakes.
I would now like to discuss the almost supernatural and mythological aspects of these films. The Abominable Dr. Phibes introduces us to the character of Vulnavia, who may be an automaton, or a physical incarnation of a Greek Goddess. I like the latter possibility. We're also given, as the modus operandi for the killings, the G'Tach--the plagues visited upon the pharaohs in ancient Egypt. One aspect of the sequel that I'm surprised more people don't pick up on, however, is in the way it continues the Egyptian motif of the first film.
In Dr. Phibes Rises Again, we're transported directly to Egypt, for a film that transcends its horror roots and rises to the level of dark fantasy. Perhaps this thematic shift was a bit much for fans of the first film, I don't know, but I think it works wonderfully! The supernatural is clearly in evidence in this film, what with its musings on eternal life and resurrection by the alignment of planets. And what a resurrection it is! Phibes returns to us in grand style, and I think fairly ingeniously.
Fortunately, the filmmakers were up to the task of pulling all of this off, what with the excellent script, acting, set design and music. Oh, what wonderful music! Now it is true that the version many of us are used to seeing is incomplete, so it is difficult to do a 100% accurate appraisal of this film, but I also think that the naysayers should bear that in mind as well. I'm just judging the film on the version I've seen, but I think it would be even better with the restored footage and music. Poor Valli Kemp. She had big shoes to fill following Virginia North's portrayal of Vulnavia in The Abominable Dr. Phibes. Now, contrary to what Mr. Romano said in his article, I think Miss Kemp acquits herself just fine in the role. She's certainly got the looks-fair complexion and beautiful doe-eyes. But I think she also adds a willowy, waif-ish touch to her role, and sports her outlandish costumes well.
And what of Peter Jeffrey and John Cater? Well, we know them better as Inspectors Trout and Waverly! They were great in the first film, and I think they really shine in the sequel. They have such great chemistry, and their English wit and banter is top-notch. This is particularly true in the scene in Waverly's office, where poor Trout has the unenviable task of explaining the deaths of two men, one involving clockwork snakes, and the other a giant gin bottle! I feel that that was always the main purpose of these characters, to provide comic relief. In the original article, the writer gave his opinion that Trout was a crack sleuth, doggedly hunting this madman Phibes to the very end. But the tone of the first film states otherwise, I feel. I always got the impression that Trout and Waverly were simply foils, adding a needed element of conventional reality to the bizarre proceedings, and certainly not a real threat to Dr. Phibes, as evidenced by the fact that he never bothered with killing them! I think their explicit function in these films were limited in that way, and in that respect, they come off wonderfully-but they were never intended to be a real match for Phibes.
That summarizes my feelings on Dr. Phibes Rises Again. I feel that it is a wonderfully imaginative, well-written film bursting with ideas. I am certainly not putting down the first film either, as it is equally good-I don't think I could choose between them. These are two films that really give you everything, so colorful and fun to watch, and I don't know if I could pick one decisive element that would elevate one above the other, as they both represent a fairy tale come to life. Wait a minute--Dr. Phibes Rises Again has all that, plus a Peter Cushing cameo! Does this mean we do have a winner? Actually, there likely will never be a winner, Ron, with such strong defenders of the sequel like you around. It certainly does seem that, after all these years, Dr. Phibes has truly risen again. Article copyright © Ron Prescott |
