LAST RITES: 'THE SATANIC RITES OF DRACULA' : RARE PHOTOGRAPH GALLERY

For Hammer Studios, Dracula would remain a lucrative cash cow throughout the 1960s. Despite ongoing protestations by star Christopher Lee, who argued that the studio cared more about shoehorning him into increasingly desperate storylines than they did about properly exploiting Bram Stoker’s famed literary icon, the character would be killed off and resurrected time and time again. For a period of time, continuity was maintained. In 1970, Scars of Dracula broke from this tradition by essentially rebooting the franchise. It also introduced a nasty, bloodthirsty streak that made earlier entries look tame - much to the consternation of Lee, who worried - quite rightly, as history would have it - that the series was on the verge of self parody. Hammer’s next step would prove even more irksome to their outspoken star - they elected to bring Dracula in to the modern day (or rather, their rather middle aged notion of youth culture) in Dracula AD 1972. The film had its share of problems, but it offered good production values and the long awaited return of Peter Cushing as Professor Van Helsing - albeit a modern day descendant. These factors alone were enough to put the film several pegs above its tacky predecessor, and they also ensured proper theatrical exposure courtesy of Warner Brothers.  

The film was reasonably successful at the box office, but not exactly the bonanza Warners were hoping for - thus, their contracted follow up, initially titled Dracula Is Dead… And Well And Living In London, was already in production by the time the distributor lost interest in the project. And so it would come to be that the final Hammer Film Production to costar Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing would fall into the hands of Dynamite Entertainment, who would grant the film a perfunctory release in the United States in 1978, shorn of four minutes of footage and under the generic title Count Dracula and His Vampire Bride - a full five years after failing to set the box office on fire for Warners in the UK, under its best known moniker, The Satanic Rites of Dracula.

The screenplay by Don Houghton has genuine promise - so much so that one frankly regrets the decision to make it another Dracula sequel. Without the frankly gratuitous presence of the old Count, it might have emerged as an engaging occult thriller, perhaps with Van Helsing on board as a sort of expert in the field. Much of the narrative is actually carried by Inspector Murray (Michael Coles, reprising his role from Dracula AD 1972 with an incongruous “modish” haircut) and MI5 agent Torrence (William Franklyn) as they investigate the kidnapping and murder of a government agent. The killing is linked with a top secret occult society, whose members are comprised of some of the top ranking members of the British government. This modern day Hellfire Club has the makings of a truly interesting plot point, but Houghton loses sight of it because he’s obliged to bring Dracula into the fold. Even Van Helsing seems a trifle underused here, with Cushing sitting rather wistfully on the sidelines for a good chunk of the film. It takes forever for Dracula to make his appearance, and when he finally does, Lee seems as disenchanted with the role as he did in Scars of Dracula. Things liven up towards the end, however, when Cushing and Lee get to play off of each other - a game of cat and mouse commences with Van Helsing visiting the offices of a shadowy businessman known as DD Denham, whom he knows to be Dracula in disguise.
 

The notion of Dracula as a symbol of a corporate bloodsucking is an irresistible one, but it, too, gets the short shrift in favor of trotting out the usual fiery conflagration. Even so, Lee has fun with the role during this scene, adopting a mock Bela Lugosi accent as he lingers in the shadows, just waiting for Van Helsing to blow his cover. This inevitably occurs, and the gloves are off for the final showdown. Hammer’s screenwriters typically found outre manners in which to dispose of the Count, but here Houghton falls back on an idea that sounded better on paper than it plays out on screen - Van Helsing lures Dracula into the woods and uses himself as bait, thus prompting the Count to tear himself to shreds in a Hawthorne bush - the very plant which provided Christ with his crown of thorns, and thus quite deadly to a vampire.

Hammer’s King of the Undead is thus reduced to an ill tempered klutz, tripping about and getting more and more battered, before Van Helsing drives the point home with one last stake to the heart. As demises go, this was probably Lee’s most ignominious prior to Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005). It would probably sting a little less (pun intended) were it not for the fact that this film marked the end of an era. Lee would go on to costar with Cushing in a few more films - notably the all-star horror spoof The House of the Long Shadows (1983) - but this would be their final confrontation at Hammer. It would also mark Lee’s final appearance as Count Dracula, though the French farce Dracula and Son (1976) - a charming and stylish venture, far superior to most of the Hammer sequels, for what it’s worth - saw him donning cloak and fangs in the context of a gentle parody. Cushing would reprise his role as Van Helsing one last time, appearing in Hammer’s bizarre horror/kung fu mishmash The Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires (1974). 

For fans of the franchise, The Satanic Rites of Dracula is neither fish nor fowl - it doesn’t come close to matching the magic of Horror of Dracula (1958) or Dracula - Prince of Darkness (1965), nor does it scrape the bottom of the barrel like Scars of Dracula. The script flirts with interesting concepts but fails to elaborate on them. Cushing and Lee give solid, professional performances, but neither can be said to be truly at their very best. Production values are solid, but unremarkable. Director Alan Gibson approaches the action briskly but without much style - he arguably brought far more pizzazz to Dracula AD 1972, despite some painful padding - and John Cacavas’ funky soundtrack couldn’t be further removed from the grand tradition of Hammer scoring, as exemplified by the work of James Bernard. It’s not a bad film, but it seems a weak, half-hearted way of ending a once-imposing series of horror films.

REVIEW: Troy Howarth

Images: Marcus Brooks
 

AMICUS FILMS: ASYLUM: PETER CUSHING AS MR SMITH (1972)

Peter Cushing as Mr Smith in 'Asylum' (1972)

VAMPIRES SOCK AND WAGONS ROLL: PETER CUSHING JULIE EGE AND DAVID CHIANG : HAMMER FILMS LEGEND OF THE SEVEN GOLDEN VAMPIRES

WAGONS ROLL: Peter Cushing, Julie Ege and David Chiang in Hammer Films THE LEGEND OF THE SEVEN GOLDEN VAMPIRES (1974) LEGEND was the first of two Hammer productions shot back-to-back in Hong Kong in partnership with Shaw Brothers, the other being SHATTER also starring Peter Cushing. LEGEND was the fifth and last time Peter Cushing would play Van Helsing. Because of the practice of 'shooting mute' in Hong Kong, all the soundtrack, music and dialogue was added later in post production. John Forbes Robertson, the actor who played Dracula in Christopher Lee's absence was furious when he discovered that he had been dubbed by another actor.

HAMMER FILMS 'BRIDES OF DRACULA' : PETER CUSHING YVONNE MONLAUR COMPLETE SET US LOBBY CARDS

'HEAR NOW, THE LEGEND OF THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES' PETER CUSHING, ANDRE MORELL : SHERLOCK HOLMES : HAMMER FILMS GALLERY AND REVIEW

Considering that I like the character of Sherlock Holmes so much, it may come as some surprise that I’ve never read a word of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s original stories. My first, and most extensive, contact with Sherlock Holmes comes from the films starring Basil Rathbone as the world’s greatest detective and Nigel Bruce as Dr. Watson. I’m aware that the performances these two gave, and the stories they were involved in, varied (sometimes greatly) from the source material, but I like them all the same.

Because I’m so familiar with the Basil Rathbone versions, it’s always interesting when I get to see another actor’s take on Holmes and another set of filmmakers’ approach to the same basic material. Consequently, when the Hammer Films version of The Hound of the Baskervilles aired on MGM HD — an almost, but not quite, variation on Turner Classic Movies — I jumped at the chance. I happen to have a fondness for Hammer productions, so this was a two-fer.

Hammer is known primarily for its horror output (all those Dracula movies foremost among them), so The Hound of the Baskervilles is something different. It still has a quasi-Gothic feel to it — it takes place primarily in a manor house on a moor, after all — so it’s not as divergent from Hammer’s usual product as all that, but it lacks any supernatural elements and is, basically, a straight-up Sherlock Holmes movie with a few Hammer touches.

The Hound of the Baskervilles has been made into a movie 24 times, so I’m going to lay odds you’ve seen at least one version at some time in your life. Accuracy to the source material varies, I’m sure, so arguments can be made about which is more faithful, but for me these kinds of things boil down to who’s playing Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. I’ve already told you that I favor Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, but in this film we have Peter Cushing and André Morell.

First a quick word about Peter Cushing. I have seen him in other things, most notably as various Van Helsings and Frankensteins in Hammer Films’ other type of movies. Despite all this, the very first thing I think of when I see Peter Cushing is Star Wars. I know it’s unfair to boil an actor down to a single role like that, and it’s equally unfair to Alec Guinness, who likewise had a long and varied career, but Peter Cushing equals Grand Moff Tarkin in my mind. As a result, he had a tough row to hoe when it came to winning me over as Holmes. It may surprise you that it didn’t take long.

Peter Cushing makes a really excellent Sherlock Holmes, and he went on to play the character many times afterward, so I’m not the only one who thought so. He has the almost sneering air of superiority about him that Basil Rathbone did so well, while remaining just likable enough in his brilliance that we can still root for him as the hero. Equally important, André Morell acquits himself quite well as Dr. Watson, something that’s absolutely essential in The Hound of the Baskervilles because Holmes is offscreen for fully one half of the picture.

Morell’s depiction of Watson is completely absent the lovable buffoonery that marks Nigel Bruce’s portrayals of the character and is more in line with (as I understand) his literary roots. Let us not forget that Watson is a decorated war veteran and, while he may not be as gifted intellectually as Holmes, is a medical doctor and partner to the detective. In the whole of this The Hound of the Baskervilles he does precisely one silly thing, which serves as foreshadowing for the demise of one of the other characters.

Story-wise there are differences between this film and the other with which I’m familiar. I consider these the Hammer touches. For example: the Baskerville family apparently suffers under a curse brought upon them by the excesses of an ancestor. In The Hound of the Baskervilles (1939), this information in shared with the audience via good, old-fashioned exposition. In this The Hound of the Baskervilles, we get a prologue set well into the past, where Sir Hugo Baskerville holds a wild party in which murder and rape are on the menu. This is the kind of thing that set Hammer Films apart from, say, Universal’s horror output: the willingness to push the envelope and even feature some (brilliantly colored) blood.

This Hound turns a supporting character into a sultry Spanish temptress, the better to feature her exposed legs and bare feet and bosom to the audience for their titillation, no pun intended. Another supporting character has a grotesque webbed hand. I’m not saying the old Rathbone pictures didn’t have good-looking women in them, or characters with weird traits, but they weren’t quite so in-your-face as these examples are. The difference between making movies in the ’30s versus the ’50s, I expect.

There’s a nice bit of cultural shorthand in The Hound of the Baskervilles that is likewise appropriate to a Hammer film. Christopher Lee — looking tanned, handsome and very aristocratic — plays Sir Henry Baskerville, the latest heir to the Baskerville manor and fortune. While he’s unfailingly polite and gentlemanly, he finds himself nearly out of control with sexual desire when it comes to the aforementioned Spanish temptress, the daughter of one of his neighbors. He presses his sexual attraction on her without an ounce of shame, calling back to a time when the aristocracy were essentially masters of all they surveyed, including the “little people.”

With some exceptions, the mystery plays out pretty much the same as it does in the Rathbone version. I won’t spoil you with the solution to the curse, even though you’ve had over 100 years to read it (I still haven’t), but I will say that the Hammer Films approach to the climax is more violent and, in its way, mean-spirited than the way they handled things in 1939. I’m not saying this is necessarily worse, only that it’s different.

You should check out The Hound of the Baskervilles for a few reasons, including a rare chance to see Christopher Lee playing a good-guy role, and Peter Cushing essaying Sherlock Holmes. The stage-bound, colorful images are an added treat, being as much a Hammer signature as the heaving breasts and blood.

Maybe I’ll actually read the novel now.

REVIEW: Sam Hawken
IMAGES: Marcus Brooks

COMING SOON!

COMING SOON: HEAR FROM THE WOMAN WHO MADE THE HOUNDS MASK ...MARGARET ROBINSON, WIFE OF HAMMER FILMS PRODUCTION DESIGNER, BERNARD ROBINSON, IN A 1980 INTERVIEW ON THE BLACKBOXCLUB.COM PODCAST SOON!