Halloween Endurance Test: Horror of Dracula (1958)

Horror of Dracula was the second film in Hammer Films’ much celebrated original trilogy of horrors. Curse of Frankenstein had made both Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee into stars, so they return in another haunting literary classic. (And by the point the Mummy came out, Hammer Studios was now the star.) Of course, by “literary” I mean inspired by the classic, perhaps based off of, not so much an adaptation. Don’t let this deter you though, since, as I discussed with Universal’s version of Dracula, Bram Stoker’s original tale is a mess. Written all the past tense, with the reporting characters hardly ever actively participating in the action being described. Hammer does its best to fix this here.

First off, Stoker’s obsessive use of the past tense. This amazingly gets used in the film, courtesy of voiceover work by the principals. Giving the film that “Hey, we have read the book!” quality while still keeping the action present. Also, it allows for background information to be given to the audience without having to rely on the old “let’s sit around the library and read vampire books” exposition scenes

Also, in a nice nod to its literary forebears, Horror of Dracula includes all the media used to tell the tale in the book. Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) uses an early phonograph to learn about vampires. Jonathan Harker (John Van Eyssen) leaves behind a diary to tell his tale posthumously.

We first meet Jonathan Harker, are welcomed into the castle with him, and learn he’s on a secret mission to kill Count Dracula (Christopher Lee). No boring introduction scene with Harker being assigned his job from some higher-up. Harker already has the job, we play catch-up, and continue on his mission. A pacing technique that would sadly be ignored by most in the genre.

Another change Hammer instituted was in the architecture of Dracula’s castle. Gone are Universal’s ceiling to floor cobwebs and swirling dust mists. Hammer’s Dracula clearly has a maid service on call, and, being a Count and all, has no problem living up to his title.

The most immediate thing noticeable in the film though is the use of sound. Given the voice-over narrative work, there’s hardly any speaking. When Harker commences on his mission, Dracula’s bride howls when she’s staked, waking the Count up. It’s still daytime however, so the Count is powerless to protect himself. Lee does a brilliant job of portraying this vulnerability through his eyes, as well as the following predatory instinct when the sun finally goes down. Not a word is said, ‘cuz the eyes say it all…

This theme of “action over audio” carries on throughout the entire film. Even when Dracula invades London, an otherwise bustling metropolis, hardly anything is heard but John Hollingsworth’s score. That and invectives directed toward Van Helsing, a man who’s much less beloved then in Universal’s version.

While I still love Bela Lugosi as the Count, Peter Cushing is clearly the superior Van Helsing. While Edward Van Sloan’s interpretation certainly seemed more intelligent, more book-learned, Cushing looks better prepared to act on his knowledge. A good doctor who’s equally ready to fight or write.

Van Helsing’s also quite bright. Explaining a chain of events that are vital to the story, but never integrated well. Everyone knows that Dracula starts hunting Lucy Holmwood after he arrives in London. Why Lucy, friend of Jonathan Harker, is never explained though. A strange coincidence considering how large a city London is.

Here Dracula’s pick is motivated by revenge. Jonathan murdered Dracula’s bride back at the castle, so Dracula murders both Harker and his bride-to-be. And yes, I know that Harker didn’t kill any of Dracula’s brides in the book, nor was he Lucy’s fiance. Just some of the changes needed to be made to Stoker’s classic to make it less cumbersome.

A philosophy which would form the basis behind Hammer’s horror movies. Using the stock literary characters, and just varying the surrounding situations enough to keep the public interested. Eventually taking it so far, in 1973′s the Satanic Rites of Dracula, that Dracula finds himself as the villain in a spy thriller! (Unfortunately, it sounds more interesting than it plays.)

Halloween Endurance Test: the Mummy (1959)

Wow. It’s amazing what a different studio can do with an otherwise stale script. Hammer Film’s the Mummy has completely washed the taste of Universal’s Mummy out of my mind. Seeing the success of Hammer’s the the Curse of Frankenstein and the Horror of Dracula, Universal wisely decided to give Hammer films its old scripts for the remake treatment.

The movie’s only just begun and already we’ve had an archeologist, Stephen Banning, sacrifice his son, John, (Peter Cushing) to a lifetime spent with a gimp leg and angered a Egyptian cult! Egyptians who, thanks to an easing of racial discrimination, actually look Egyptian!

“Mr. Banning! You would do well to remember the ancient saying, ‘He who robs the graves of Egypt dies.”

Not to mention the sets and costumes! While I personally have no way of knowing if the set does, in fact, look like Egypt, I do know it does, in fact, look like the Egypt portrayed in Raiders of the Lost Ark. This same sort of comforting movie logic dwells behind the costumes too. As if Steven Spielberg bought all the extras from Revolt of the Zombies (pith helmets and all) and relocated them to his archeological fantasy.

Cosmetics aside, Hammer’s version of the Mummy’s tale is pretty similar to Universal’s. A tomb is desecrated, and Kharis is revived to reap revenge. Pacing is the biggest difference here, as Universal used numerous flashbacks to tell the backstory, where Hammer just has the head priest drop bits and pieces of it into his incantations.

Mummies rising from a watery grave = frightening. The same cannot be said, however, for when the Mummy breaks into a sanitarium to strangle his first victim. The padded room’s bright lights effectively mute all the menace out the Mummy; making him look like a clumsy, muddy ninja.

Of course, with Christopher Lee wearing the Mummy’s rags, it’s a 6 and a half foot tall muddy ninja! So tall when standing flat-footed that the Mummy’s one-armed chokehold is totally believable, just because he towers above the rest of the cast anyway.

(Lee’s stature playing a big (pun intended) part in his becoming Hammer’s iconic movie monster man. Lee’s transformation into Frankenstein’s “Creature” in the Curse of Frankenstein was believable because his natural height was already so unusual.)

Kharis kills off the two of his three archeological victims easily, but is seen by John while killing his father, Stephen. Leaving John of Princess Ananka’s tomb to wondering who the mystery, rag-wearing assailant was, and why was he impervious to bullets?

An interesting question considering the monster in this film. Normally a monster’s weakness is as common knowledge as their strengths. Vampires are vulnerable to stakes through the heart, sunlight, holy water, running water, garlic, and crucifixes. Frankenstein’s monster’s biggest weakness is its own piecemeal construction; with it usually being burnt or clumsily falling to its death.

Leaving viewers to wonder, how does one kill a mummy?

Every film should have a Mummy versus shotgun scene. Even if the shotgun is as ineffective on Kharis as the poker that next gets jabbed through him.

Luckily John’s wife, Isobel (Yvonne Furneaux), looks exactly like Ananka (surprising since one would think Ananka would look more Egyptian, having been a Egyptian princess, rather than European), and is able to fool Kharis into murdering his master and slowly walking into a swampland ambush.

Where John Banning’s lone shotgun failed, a police battalion of shotguns succeeds; sending Kharis back to his watery grave.

Halloween Endurance Test: the Curse of Frankenstein (1957)

The Curse of Frankenstein is one of the most important films in the Frankenstein canon, if not, the most important one.  While Universal’s Dracula opened the door for horror films, and Frankenstein showed that horror films could also be as technically proficient as any other genre, it was Hammer Films’ the Curse of Frankenstein that opened up Mary Shelley’s domain for everyone else.  Assured by their lawyers that Shelley’s story (now in the public domain) was an actual, viable resource, Hammer made their own take on the tale.  Legally, Hammer just had to make sure their version of Frankenstein’s monster looked nothing like Karloff’s interpretation.

Even the stories are vastly different.  Universal’s Frankenstein was a well respected member of the community. a status completely at odds with his passion for grave-robbing.  (Not to mention the Edgar Van Sloan disclaimer that precedes the film, warning moviegoers of the ghastliness they’re about to see.)  When we initially meet Baron von Frankenstein (Peter Cushing), he’s already in jail, and threatening to strangle a priest!  My how standards can change in 20 years!

Here Victor is orphaned at a young age, and quickly becomes an enfant terrible.  He ushers his aunt out of the house, promising to keep her on the allowance his mother was providing her.  His literary love interest Elisabeth is actually his cousin here, and is removed from view just as quickly.  His aunt briefly noting that, “she’ll [Elisabeth] make a fine wife for someone someday,” before the door is slammed shut.  Absolutely no interest.

Victor has one interest, and that’s science.  He hires a science tutor, Paul, and learns all he has to offer in just two years.  Keeping Paul on salary afterwards as an assistant/voice of reason/love interest.  This would be total pedophile material if not for the fact that it’s Victor who’s clearly wearing the pants.  (Granted, nowadays it’d still be pedophilia, but back then, it the days of rigid social/class hierarchy, who knows?  There’s clearly no teacher’s union for Paul to fall on for support.)

Paul goes along with Victor through most of his experiments until classism again rears its ugly head.  Paul is fine helping Victor bring a dog back to life, rob a bandit’s grave, and endeavor to create life.  It’s not until Victor robs a sculptor’s grave that Paul feels their experiments have gone too far.

“Mutilating?  I’ve removed his brain; mutilating has nothing to do with it.”

Sensing this testosterone overload, and the questionable glances it’d bring out of movie-goers, Hammer brings Elisabeth back into the fold.  Her mother’s dead, she now has no place to live, and she’s engaged to Victor.  Who, we learn, has been seeing Justine, his maid, on the side.  These Europeans and their pansexualism!

Creating a love triangle between Victor, Paul, and Elisabeth.  A two-sided love triangle, as Victor still shows no interest in Elisabeth.  Making one wonder why she was even included in the script besides as being a tie-back to the novel.  Interesting as even “the Creature” (Christopher Lee) plays second-string to Victor!

(An important distinction here is that Christopher Lee is always referred to as “the Creature.”  Frankenstein’s creation having been called “the Monster” by Universal, the M-word was thus off limits in this film.)

Book nerds/academics will rejoice in the fact that the Curse of Frankenstein is assuredly Victor’s show.  No one watching the film will have any interest in the Creature.  Since, even after the monster is alive, no attention is paid to it.  In fact, it’s killed one scene later!  The movie’s final act’s sole focus being how Victor will give life back to it.

This film was a huge hit for Hammer, leading the studio to remake other Universal franchises (Dracula, the Mummy, etc…), as well as numerous sequels. It also made Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee into huge stars; quickly establishing themselves as stars in Britain’s new wave of horror.

Halloween Endurance Test: the Vampire Lovers (1970)

[When I first decided to watch a horror movie everyday through the month of October, I honestly had no idea what I was getting into. I just had a dream, made to myself, tons of free time, and a (much-needed) double-shot of Hammer Studio-produced "lesbian vampire films." As you may or may not have noticed, this is a certain subsection of the genre that I haven't returned to since.]

My first venture into Hammer‘s “lesbian vampire films” was Countess Dracula, which, truth be told, didn’t have much by the way of “lesbians,” “Dracula,” or even “vampires.” Luckily for my budding endeavor, however, tonight’s film, the Vampire Lovers, does involve both vampires and lesbianism. As well as a healthy doses of filmmaking’s three “C”‘s: Cleavage, Peter Cushing, and reCycled sets.

The cleavage is supplied by Countess Dracula herself, Ingrid Pitt, who puts her ample bosom and her thick Polish accent on full display. Perversely, Ms. Pitt gets top billing over even genre star Peter Cushing.

Wisely, this one eschews any overt Dracula connection, instead settling on a revenge format. Not a bad choice, as the title already tells us what kind of supernatural creature we’ll be encountering. As a revenge flick, there’s practically no need for establishing a backstory!

This is a definite bonus, as the actual story is confusing; especially when you consider how the film was trying to distance itself from Dracula’s legacy. Ingrid Pitt’s name is Marcilla, which, vampire scholars will note, is the title of Farnu’s famous vampirism tale Carmilla; just with two letters transposed

Not to mention even the transposition doesn’t truly work; as there’s at least one scene where Pitt is referred to as “Carmilla” instead of “Marcilla.” Daughter Emma, recounting how in her recurring nightmare, “It [the family cat] lies across me. Warm and heavy. And I feel its fur in my mouth… It turns into you, Carmilla. Now obviously Hammer was hoping the audience would be so caught up in the lesbian subtext to completely ignore the fact that Emma got the name wrong.

Misnomers aside, the Vampire Lover’s story has clearly been inspired by Bram Stoker’s more popular tale. Baron Hartog’s family is massacred by vampires wearing funeral shrouds. Their rising from their tombs immediately brings to mind Todd Browning’s own staging in Dracula. Though Hartog manages to one-up Van Helsing in the vampire hunter department with a decidedly more physical approach.

We’re talking full-on pretend hypnotism here, with Hartog acting as if he’s trapped under the vampire’s spell. He waits for the vampire to move in for the kill, get stunned by the crucifix hidden under his shirt, yank the vampire’s hair (as vampiric lovers, all the vampires have long, flowing hair) as Hartog slits their throat. Such sequences, beautiful as they are in their flawless choreography, also highlight Hammer’s final secret weapon: the Vampire Lovers’ color.

Hammer’s films stood out almost as much for their vibrant blood reds as they did for the 60s relaxed film-code standards. When a character was bitten, the screen lit up! Lugosi never had a chance to play with this kind of stuff!

Such an innovation was also a double-edged sword though, as the bright hues used to enhance the horror could just as easily detract. The opening vampire crypt scene might not have been such a blatant Browning crib if the colors didn’t highlight the tomb’s artificiality.

The dinner scene also evokes the spirit of Dracula with its dialogue:

“Red or white,” asks the waiter holding up two wine bottles.

“Red,” Marcilla knowingly answers.

One can only imagine Universal’s lawyers throwing a fit about that reworking of their iconic “I never drink… wine” line.

The only thing really holding this film back is its reliance on unbelievable amounts of viewer disbelief. We’re supposed to accept that the General von Spielsdorf’s family doesn’t know that Marcilla is a vampire; though all indications obviously point to that conclusion.

First we have Marcilla’s servant, who is pale as a ghost. Now I know Hammer was a British studio, and I also recognize that the British are known the world over for their politeness. I understand said Britons were acting as Germans, but really? No one picks up on this incongruity? Everyone else has a healthy tan, except the servant, who looks as if she’s never seen the sun? All while there’s a vampire threat hanging over the family?

I don’t know, maybe I’m being too picky here. Since I also don’t understand the vampiric infection’s timeline. As daughter Emma’s transformation takes place over a number of nights, a la, Dracula’s Lucy, while Marcilla just up and hypnotizes Mademoiselle Perrodot before taking her. And, by “taking,” I, of course, mean stripping naked for the victim. This is, after all, still a lesbian vampire film through and though.

Halloween Endurance Test: Countess Dracula (1971)

 

After Universal’s initial, studio-saving, success with it, Britain’s Hammer Films was the next studio to find fame, and notoriety, with the Dracula character.  Legally, Hammer couldn’t recreate any likeness or aspect of Universal’s Lugosi portrayal; a condition that had kept the character virtually untouched since 1945′s House of Dracula.  (House of Dracula being the last attempt to make any money from Universal’s monstrous cash cow.)

Since Lugosi’s histrionic portrayal was officially off-limits, Hammer went the other route, hiring Christopher Lee, an actual English-speaking actor, to play the monster.  Thus starting one of the longest running debates in horror moviedom: Who made the better Dracula: Lugosi or Lee?

(Seriously, just try it out on some film buffs thenext time you’re stuck at a boring Halloween party and watch the sparks fly! Don’t worry, as film buffs, this will easily be the most exciting thing to happen to them all night.)

Unfortunately Lee’s success left him falling victim to the same Dracula curse: the desire to branch out.  Unlike Lugosi though, Lee would be successful in finding more illustrious work (e.g. not making horror movies; such projects as the Lord of the Rings trilogy).

Leaving Hammer to turn to female vampire tales.  Perfect vehicles for their (at the time) current leading lady, Ingrid Pitt.  Tonight she plays a character based off the ever-popular Elizabeth Bathory legend.

Bathory is infamous for killing hundreds of girls; with the kicker being she did so to bathe in their blood.  Doing so supposedly allowed her to retain her youthful appearance.  A perfect story for sexually-exploitative vampire movies, though one has to wonder why a G-rated version wasn’t used in Universal’s Dracula’s Daughter.

Bathory would become quite the popular legend in vampire films, with this one being one of the few female vampire films that doesn’t involve lesbianism.  Instead the Countess is locked in a love triangle; between an interested suitor (who doesn’t know her secret) and the old Captain (who loves the Countess as the Countess) who worked under her old husband.

As can be guessed from such a story, there’s a lot of scenes with the Countess avoiding her youthful suitor mid-transformation.  The old Captain gets more and more tired of being led around, all while the villagers wonder where their daughters are disappearing to.

This all this naturally builds to the climatic wedding scene.  Where the Captain,  villagers, and the Countess’ own daughter seek to stop the ceremony.

Allowing the film to flip cinematic conventions in an amusing fashion.  Normally the wedding scene is interrupted so that a protagonist can marry their true love, instead of an impostor.  Here, the film’s protagonist _is_ the impostor!  With all the other characters set to carry out their own forms of revenge.  All topped with a healthy dose of quasi-vampirism and filicide!