Friday, 16 March 2012

HAMMER FILM PRODUCTION: PETER CUSHING 'SWORD OF SHERWOOD FOREST' SIGNED PHOTOGRAPHS


After effectively revitalizing many of the classic Hollywood monsters, it’s not surprising that England’s Hammer Films would take on a folklore hero most famously played by Errol Flynn in 1938. Though this is not the first (1954’s MEN OF SHERWOOD FOREST) or last (1967’s A CHALLENGE FOR ROBIN HOOD) time Hammer would depict the legendary character, 1960’s SWORD OF SHERWOOD FOREST is certainly the best known of their Robin Hood features. As part of a grand promotion of classic adventure and excitement, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment is releasing the film on DVD along with THE BANDIT OF SHERWOOD FOREST (1946), PRINCE OF THIEVES (1948) and ROGUES OF SHERWOOD FOREST (1950).



A loner riding on horseback (Desmond Llewelyn, soon to be “Q” in the “James Bond” series) is shot with an arrow in the back by the henchmen of the Sheriff of Nottingham. The man barely escapes with his life, falling in the hands of Robin Hood (Richard Greene) and his men, all notorious outlaws. The fair Marian (Sarah Branch, HELL IS A CITY), witness to the well-meaning abduction becomes an acquaintance of Robin, soon setting up a meeting between him and the Sheriff (Peter Cushing), but our hero does not want to hand over the injured man, even with the large monetary offer on the table. Soon, the Sheriff and his henchmen are on the track of Robin and his camp, even killing one of their rogues in cold blood. A wanted man, Robin disguises his identity to come into the attention of Edward, Earl of Newark (Richard Pasco, THE GORGON) who competes with him in various archery competitions in the hopes of exploiting him as a paid assassin. But as Robin is lead to believe it’s the Sheriff he wants slayed, a plot to kill the incoming Archbishop Hubert Walter (Jack Gwillim, THE MONSTER SQUAD) becomes our do-gooder’s top concern, and he’ll do anything in is power to prevent harm's way.



SWORD OF SHERWOOD FOREST is one of many Hammer big-screen projects adapted from a popular television series (a practice they would continue successfully well into the 1970s), in this case "The Adventures of Robin Hood" which was produced in England from 1955 through 1960, and also featured Greene in the title role (he co-produced the movie in association with Yeoman Films). Terence Fisher – at the time Hammer’s ingenious darling for resurrecting Frankenstein, Dracula and the Mummy to worldwide revenue – had directed some episodes of the series, so he was a natural to helm this larger-scale theatrical production. None of the other major players from the TV series (where Alan Wheatley portrayed the Sheriff of Nottingham for five years) would be cast in the film, instead Hammer used a lot of their stock players and a number of other familiar thesps.



SWORD OF SHERWOOD FOREST is never going to top any Hammer fan’s “best of” list, and although it’s far from a perfect film, you should still give it a try. Beautifully shot in widescreen on location in Ireland as well as the impressive confines of Bray Studios, director Terence Fisher injects the film with sorted horse chases, sword fights, and the expected comic book violence in which characters are hit with arrows left and right. But the screenplay is one dimensional, many of the action sequences fail to make a memorable impact, and even though the cast is of top caliber, nobody really stands out with Greene being a passable Robin and Sarah Branch a beautiful but forgettable Marian. With a number of elaborate costume changes, Peter Cushing makes a great Sheriff of Nottingham; you only wish his character was allowed to be more evil, or at least more villainous. Ultimately, he’s upstaged by Richard Pasco who actually shares more scenes with Greene.



The players also include a well-cast but underused Nigel Green (THE FACE OF FU MANCHU, COUNTESS DRACULA) as Little John, Dennis Lotis (CITY OF THE DEAD/HORROR HOTEL) as Alan A'Dale, Derren Nesbitt (BURKE AND HARE) as the doomed Martin of Eastwood and Niall MacGinnis (NIGHT OF THE DEMON) as the rotund Friar Tuck, who is played mostly for giggles. In one of his numerous early 1960s appearances for Hammer, a young Oliver Reed plays Lord Melton, one of Edward’s (Richard Pasco’s) bratty cronies. Introduced by harassing Robin and then having his pet falcon pierced by his mighty arrow, Reed’s Melton sports a ridiculously exaggerated lispy accent, and the actor has very little screen time, but is instrumental in one of the key death scenes.


Never before available on home video in the United States, SWORD OF SHERWOOD FOREST makes its DVD debut courtesy of Sony Pictures Home Entertainment as part of their “Robin Hood Collection”. Continuing a high standard of quality attributed to all their recent Hammer/Columbia DVD releases, the film is presented in its original 2.35:1 MegaScope aspect ratio with anamorphic enhancement, and needless to say, it looks terrific. It’s a perfect blemish-free transfer with scrumptious colors and excellent detail, and the mono audio track is crystal clear. Optional English subtitles are included on the disc. Extras include the original theatrical trailer (matted to 1.85:1, as we assume it was too when projected in theaters), a promotional trailer for Columbia Pictures classics available on DVD and a trailer for A KNIGHT'S TALE starring the late Heath Ledger.

REVIEW: George Reis
HERE
IMAGES: Marcus Brooks

Tuesday, 13 March 2012

HAMMER FILM PRODUCTIONS CLASSIC 'THE MUMMY': PETER CUSHING AND CHRISTOPHER LEE FULL REVIEW AND GALLERY!


CAST: Peter Cushing: (John Banning) Christopher Lee: (Kharis) Yvonne Furneaux: (Isobel Banning/ Princess Ananka) Eddie Bryne: (Inspector Mulrooney) Felix Aylmer: (Stephen Banning) Raymond Huntley: (Joseph Whemple) George Pastell: (Mehemet Bey) George Woodbridge: (P.C. Blake) Micheal Ripper: (Poacher)

CREW:  Director: Terence Fisher. Producer: Michael Carrreras. Script Writer: Jimmy Sangster. Music: Franz Reizenstein. Cinematograhpy: Jack Asher. Editors: Alfred Cox James Needs. UK Release September 25th 1959 / US Release 16th December 1959. Running Time: 88mins. Distributor: Universal.

When you get right down to it, most mummy movies are more or less the same. Guy becomes mummy, mummy is awakened, mummy discovers reincarnated princess that he loved back in good ol' Egypt and mummy deals with unrequited love and undead emo. So, when it comes to mummy movies, it generally not the story that makes it a good one. Instead, they have to rely on actors, themes, sets and cinematography. Luckily, The Mummy (1959) has all of this in spades, making Hammer's renowned contribution to the genre not only a good mummy movie, but a damned good film overall.


Screenwriter Jimmy Sangster actually appropriated most of the story from the earlier Universal Mummy films. He claims this was completely accidental, but the fact remains that the main storyline mirrors such classics as The Mummy's Hand and The Mummy's Tomb, right down to the names of the characters and the made-up Egyptian god. John Banning (Peter Cushing) is in Egypt with his father, Stephen, on the verge of discovering the lost tomb of Princess Ananka. During the course of the expedition, he has badly injured his leg, but, rather than going back to base to have it properly set, he stays at the dig site so his father can live his archaeological dream.


Unfortunately, after opening the tomb, the senior Banning discovered the Scroll of Life, a document secret to the Egyptian god Karnak. And he does what they always do in the mummy moves - he reads the darn thing. And, ever predictable, the mummy (Christopher Lee) comes to life. Fast-forward three years. John Banning is a respectable gentleman, Stephen Banning is in the crazy house, and a weird Egyptian guy has just come to town with a very large box. Soon, there's an ancient priest turned mummy named Kharis on the loose, and people start dying. And, of course, John Banning's wife looks frighteningly like the deceased Princess Ananka.


Now, I realize how cliché that sounds. Who in their right mind would want to watch that? Me, that's who. Despite the overwhelmingly cliché story, it is so well told that you never realize you're watching something familiar. The pacing is fantastic, never too slow, never too fast. The story begins in the past, offering a brief backstory and explaining both John Banning's limp and the motivations of the mummy. Once in the present, the story jumps right in with a crazy old man's stories of living mummies, a mysterious box falling into the bog, and the mummy arising from the mud and murk into turn-of-the-century England. The instant you start to get bored, the story changes yet again, moving into a flashback sequence that explains how the mummy came to be, creating not just a monster, but a character we can sympathize with. Before you know it, the film is half over. And then the fun really begins – the last sequences being filled mostly with mummy attacks and anti-mummy stratagem. By the time the film concludes, it's hard to believe that 88 minutes have actually elapsed. I say bravo.


This pacing is complimented by some very competent direction on the part of Terence Fisher. Most notable, I think, is Fisher’s ability to create menace without gore. The film rarely descends into visceral thrills, instead depending on the viewer's imagination to fill in the gaps left by the filming. During Ananka's burial scene, in which a whole slew of people are set to be executed, we never actually see anyone die. Right as the guards align themselves behind the Nubian slaves, who are to accompany Ananka into the afterlife, the scene changes, showing only the unmoving face of Kharis, high priest of Karnak. Then, second later, we see the same guards behind the doomed maidens, their swords newly soaked in blood. Each maiden is visited by the camera in turn, blessed by Kharis, and then bows her head. The camera moves on, leaving her to her death. The effect is grisly, without being gory. Aside from a few moments spend strangling John, the Mummy actually perpetrates very little personal violence in the film. This does not, however, diminish his menace. In fact, given that two people are dead because of the mummy, but murdered in ways we are not privvy to, makes Kharis seemingly more dangerous.


Fisher plays up Kharis’s overpowering presence using perspective to make the mummy look bigger when he's determined to a purpose. When Mehemet, the aforementioned weird Egyptian guy, instructs Kharis to kill those who have invaded his beloved's tomb, the Mummy practically towers, appearing to be almost two heads taller than his supposed master. Now, Christopher Lee may be a tall man, but he's not that tall, and, after a few seconds of looking at the screen, it's obvious that it's just an optical illusion. But it doesn't matter. The image of the Mummy looming dangerously over Mehemet and resolved to his mission is one that sticks with you, and, no matter how obvious the trick, the sense of foreboding radiating from that scene pervades the rest of the film.


The clever direction is complimented by production designer Bernard Robinson’s equally clever sets. What makes the sets clever is that they are everything we imagine. The tomb of Ananka is cluttered with ancient relics in impeccable condition, apparently untouched by time. It's exactly what I imagined King Tut's tomb to look like when I was 10. There's nothing realistic about the Egyptian sets, and we don't notice. Instead, the beautiful layout and colors and glittering golden artifacts transport us back to the Egypt of our childhood, the fantastical, magical one where tombs are cursed and mummies really do come to life. The sets of turn-of-the-century England are equally opulent, if somewhat more subdued. We've left the exotic world of Egypt for the more civilized English countryside, but we haven't left the sweeping, fantastical atmosphere behind. Instead, we're given a lush, cultured, romantic vision of what England might have been like, what we would like it to be like, and we continue in our imaginary world, one in which walking mummies, while slightly out of place, remain plausible.


And everything I've mentioned thus far pales in comparison to the acting, particularly the performances of Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. Cushing's performance is probably the easiest of the two to discuss, since he's front and center for the entire film, rather than being buried under a mound of make-up and costuming. Cushing's Banning is the perfect English gentlemen – intelligent, collected, and oh-so-refined. When he talks in that cool, detached voice, telling the town inspector without blinking that he saw a walking mummy or coldly instructing his wife to go upstairs, we feel like we could drown in the Englishness of it all. Normally, a performance like this could become monotonous, so unfeeling as to be disengaging to the viewer, but Cushing offsets this with an uncharacteristic intensity, a passion that lies just below the surface of Banning's collected exterior. It's a passion that is almost reminiscent of the hot, unpredictable desert from which he unearthed Ananka's tomb. Because of this carefully constructed performance, when Cushing's performance becomes more emotional, more panicked, and, frankly, more human at the end of the film, the transformation is unsurprising. The sudden shift of characterization could have devolved into unbelief, but in Cushing's hands, it seems a natural evolution, a final result that was an entire film in the making.


Lee's equally brilliant performance is impossible to discuss without first talking about the make-up. Roy Ashton did a fantastic job outfitting Lee for the Mummy. He's swathed in bandages, with bits of them almost falling off, resulting in the entire get-up just oozing age. The Mummy, through costuming alone, becomes an ancient, almost decrepit, force of destruction, so obviously out of its element in turn-of-the-century England. But where Ashton’s really shines is when it comes to the Mummy's face. The Mummy's face is entirely encased in bandages, leaving only the eyes exposed. The genius, however, is in the eyes themselves. Rather than leaving them be, Ashton actually constructed fake eyelids for Lee, so that his eyes matched the rest of the make-up. The effect is that Lee's eyes blend, the only visible part of him becoming part of the costume. Because of this one, particular decision, Lee becomes the Mummy visually, rather than just being a guy looking out through a well-constructed Mummy suit.


It's amazing, really, given how little of Lee's features are exposed, how wonderful the performance really is. The man's gaze is smoldering, his eyes brightening and widening when the Mummy is given purpose, and then dimming, becoming droopy and dull when his purpose is fulfilled. One scene in particular, when Kharis is being originally entombed, the camera gives us a close-up of Lee's face. If you've never seen a Mummy with an “Oh s**t” look, you should check this out. Lee's expressive eyes are complimented by poise and gesture. The Mummy's posture changes depending on his mood. He appears menacing and angry when attacking those who desecrated his beloved's tomb, and then, with the appearance of Mrs. Banning, he emanates sadness and longing – without once uttering a single syllable.


The final scene of the film, when Kharis releases Mrs. Banning into the bog and faces the armed vigilantes is downright heartbreaking. His reluctance to let go of the woman he believes to be the reincarnation of his beloved is evident in every moment, ever hesitation. His eyes are sad, almost as if saying goodbye one last time. Thanks to Christopher Lee, Kharis isn't just a monster; he's a sympathetic character in an already complex film.


It could be said that almost every mummy movie ever made is about the arrogance of western, modern society in regards to ancient and foreign cultures. The Mummy is no exception. Stephen Banning breaks into Ananka's tomb, with no regard for the dead of another's culture. Further, he dismisses a native, our aforementioned Mehemet, who warns him not to desecrate the remains. This act, if done in, say, an English monastery, would be unfathomable, but, because the tomb is ancient Egyptian, it's just science to Banning. Unfortunately, the ancient world of magic and superstition is not as silly as Stephen Banning thinks, and it comes back to bite him. The mummy rampages and terrorizes the modern world, which is ill-equipped to handle it. The undead can't be explained by science, and so the modern archaeologists (both Stephen and his friend, Joseph) not only receive their comeuppance, but are effectively emasculated by the ancient world. Arrogance and ignorance, under the mask of science, is what really destroys the archaeological team that desecrates Ananka's tomb. The mummy is only the instrument.


Interestingly, John Banning is the only member of that original team that is not destroyed by Kharis. Superficially, it could be said that he was just lucky, that his wife resembled Ananka, and that fact saved his life. But it's really more than that. Ignorance and arrogance – his father's to be exact – cripples John during that fateful expedition. He has a limp throughout the entire film. However, his handicap is more than physical. His father's arrogance has also crippled him emotionally and mentally. He is shackled by his father's blind unconcern and constrained by the same flawed Western thinking.


Thus, The Mummy is also about how the son, John, transforms himself and breaks free of his father's curse. At the beginning of the film, John Banning is cold. He dismisses his father's stories of a living mummy as a crazy man's rambling, and, towards a woman who is passionately in love with him, behaves indifferently and dismissively. However, as the film progresses, John Banning's eyes begin to open. He begins to believe in the possibility of magic and the undead – a very non-scientific supposition – and, when Kharis begins to threaten his wife, he becomes concerned and compassionate, deeply fearing for his safety. This transformation, which frees him from the influence of his father's thinking, is complete when Kharis steals his wife away, taking her back to the bog. Not only does John react emotionally, obviously frightened for the woman he loves, he is willing to sacrifice the Mummy, an intellectual curiosity and important archeological find. He destroys the Mummy for the safety of someone he loves, giving up knowledge for emotion. He makes the sacrifice his father didn't three years ago.


The Mummy wins at filmmaking on all counts. If it sounds like I'm gushing a bit, I am. Few films have really impressed me as much as this one, and it's one I look forward to seeing again. It is not only wonderfully effective on all levels, it has a maturity and depth that are easily overlooked in the genre. Mummy movies may be a dime a dozen, but Hammer's The Mummy is worth a whole lot more.


Images: MARCUS BROOKS


Friday, 9 March 2012

PETER CUSHING TENDRE DRACULA PROMO

HAMMER FILM PRODUCTIONS: HAMMER FRANKENSTEIN FRIDAYS: MONSTER MAG NUMBER THREE 'FRANKENSTEIN AND THE MONSTER FROM HELL' FEATURE.


PETER CUSHING, JOHN WILLIAM MITCHELL MBE AND HAMLET: A GREAT PIECE OF CINEMA HISTORY!




PETER CUSHING, JOHN WILLIAM MITCHELL AND HAMLET:
John William Mitchell, MBE (or "Mitch" as he was sometimes known) was a production sound mixer/recordist. His credits included: 'Goodbye, Mr. Chips'; 'Great Expectations'; 'Kind Hearts And Coronets'; 'The Bridge On The River Kwai'; 'From Russia With Love'; 'The Spy Who Came In From The Cold'; 'Live And Let Die'; 'Le Mans'; and 'A Passage To India' among many others. His autobiography, 'Flickering Shadows' was published in 1997. This copy of 'Hamlet The Film And The Play' (published in 1948) belonged to Mitchell and was signed by several members of the cast and crew including: Terence Morgan, Felix Aylmer, Peter Cushing and twice by Laurence Olivier (in 1948 and 1972). Mitchell was sound recorder on 'Hamlet'. He was nominated twice for Academy Awards in the category of Best Sound and worked on over 150 films. This book was auctioned in late-2008 along with several other personal items from Mitchell's private collection.

Wednesday, 7 March 2012

PETER CUSHING: EARLY MONSTER MAG FEATURE FROM 1974.


 I'LL BE POSTING A NICE LITTLE NOSTALGIA FEATURE SOON ON THE HISTORY OF WHAT WAS PROBABLY THE UK'S MOST POPULAR MONSTER MAGAZINE EVER, 'MONSTER MAG'. IN THE MEANTIME, HERE'S SOMETHING THAT WILL TAKE SOME OF YOU BACK TO YOUR EARLY YEARS OF 'HAMMER WORSHIP'! AN INTERESTING PIECE ON PETER THAT 'MONSTER MAG' PUBLISHED AS PART OF ISSUE FOUR. A BIT SKETCHY WITH THE DETAILS, BUT FOR MANY OF US THIS WAS A REAL TREAT.

Sunday, 4 March 2012

PETER CUSHING: PAUL MCNAMEE'S PETER CUSHING MARATHON: COLLINSONS INGRID PEEL! LAP THREE


Scoff all you like at that most basic of puns (and really, I AM sorry) but I was chuffed to pieces when I thought of it after the latest of my triple-bill Cushenings. This week’s trio is thematically tied by bosoms bare and bared teeth, and I’ll throw in a little cinematic historical discussion while we’re at it (hey, as long as the history’s Hammer, I’m a grade A student with a major in weak metaphors.)


Twins Of Evil is a misleading title, but Twin Of Evil And The Other Twin hasn’t the same schlocky ring so I’ma let it go. The film opens with a fairly weak scene in which a witch (aha) is burned for her presumed sins under the authority of Gastav Weil (pronounced Vile, and altogether descriptive of his general demeanour). Weil is played by Cushing of course, and at first I had trouble getting into the film as Christian crusaders against the morally unjust really turns me right off a movie, but it wasn’t long before the sheer energy of Cushing’s performance won me over (I think it was around about the time he roars “by BURNING THEM!” in response to a query on how best to deal with the devil’s dearies) and by the end of the film I was struggling not to root for him despite his general nastiness and unrootforability. I think in any other actor’s hands the role wouldn’t be as sympathetic but this is a Cushing Classic right off the bat and his Weil is unforgettable, from his handling of a cane to his two-fingered point (now officially my favourite point in movie history, and I AM a point enthusiast). His sunken cheeks belie his state of health but there’s no denying that look defines the force of Cushing throughout the decade.


Despite his starring role, at times it feels as though the film is an expose for its titular twins Madeleine and Mary Collinson, Maltese Playmates and occasional actors who don’t help confusion by dressing identically from the very beginning of the film. When they’re introduced they’re observed sharing a coach with an elderly pair who seem to disapprove of their very being young and youthsome, not to mention their Venetian origins (after all, if these girls are from Venice then they’re not from HERE, which won’t do at all. “We didn’t mean to offend you”, the nicer of the sisters offers, but I’ll tell you what I reckon, right, I reckon they DID, for these are no mere twins, but Twins...Of Evil (really driven home as Cushing despairs “the devil has sent me...twins of evil”, which is the best shoehorning of a film’s title into its dialogue I’ve ever seen and won a gen-yoo-ine Arms Up in celebration).


The basic plot of the film is that the twins (OF...oh, I’m sure you know which twins by now) have been sent to live with their God-bothering, Bible-blasting uncle (Weil) who’s swanning about the village looking for wenches to burn to slake his thirst for violence and general bastardry. One such scene sees he and his merry, murderous mob descend upon a woodland shack outside which sits a broom in one of the least intentionally humorous moments in Hammer history. Within, Count Karnstein (the implausibly fey Damien Thomas) is up to badness with a local lovely and his machinations are caught just short of copulation by the invading Weil whose actions point ultimately to a subtly-implied spiritual impotence that, again, in lesser hands would make him hard to get behind. Karnstein is an enjoyable villain but is undermined by Thomas’ resemblance to Rowan Atkinson, making the claret-fond fop look most often like a particularly nasty, camp Edmund Blackadder.


The nasty twin decides to get embroiled with Count Karnstein (whose Matte Painting home is visible from her window) because she’s just a bit of a bad ‘un really, despite her sister’s protests. Soon enough Weil gets wise to her vampirism but not before a bankable switcheroo (if the best episodes of Sister Sister have taught us anything it’s that twins MUST be switched over during the course of any work of fiction starring them). Needless to say promiscuity is punished and prudence praised, though Cushing’s crusades go unrewarded as he plunges to his death, an axe in his back.


Elsewhere, we have an Anton (box: checked), some impressive eyebrows, phallic candle abuse, fairly pervy camera attention paid to the bust of a bust of Karnstein’s ancestor and a character named Ingrid Hopper, Prim And Proper. Fair enough, that’s not her actual title, but it sums her up perfectly and anyway, I’m in charge here, sonny boy. When Karnstein bites the dust we’re treated to the usual Hammer vampire demise of various layers of decomposition but most notably Karny goes bald before decaying into a slab of skull meat. The Cushing Ruckus is fairly ongoing, though his speedy decapitation near the end of the film is easily the highlight. There’s a Hammer Scream in there, too, and what Hammer would be complete without those distinctive ugly gulders wrenched from the throats of poor doomed chaps?


Twins Of Evil is a fairly expensive looking production and I couldn’t help feeling that the nudity cheapened affairs somewhat, though for a film whose driving force concerns sexual attitudes it’s hardly a fair gripe. Most importantly, after a weak start it emerges as a great film, and it’s not only one of the most enjoyable Hammers but one of my favourite Cushing performances to date. Still, if gratuitous boobage annoyed me in Twins, I was hardly prepared for what was to come...


The Vampire Lovers actually precedes Twins Of Evil in Hammer’s oft-called Karnstein Trilogy but the connection is scant and not worth observing them in order or succession. On the whole, the film is a lot weaker thanks in no small part to Sir Pete’s “and Peter Cushing as” credit as opposed to the hallowed “Peter Cushing IN” which spells a starring role and most often something worth looking forward to. Alas, his role here is a supporting one, and coming off the back of Twins Of Evil it suffers in comparison to the sheer bombast of Weil. Still, it was worth it if only to pick up on some Hammer Staples and make a few cackhanded observations about sexuality and the studio’s steady metamorphosis from class to trash.


First off, the Ms in the Hammer title card are in italics which bothered me to no end ‘til I forgot about it seconds later. Confusing further is the night’s second (but chronologically first) appearance of the name Joachim, which I’m hesistant to add to the list of Hammer Staples until I spot a third use, though two films in a row is pretty good going for a new entry. Fairly quickly we’re introduced to a much nicer Matte Painting for our cast to live in (or be murdered at) than that of Twins Of Evil and a spooky prologue set in a spooktacular graveyard just bloody rife with spooktastic spookening. In less infuriating terms, there’s a lady roaming about in a sheet while someone who looks a bit like Doctor Who watches her from a window on high and in a voiceover that soon vanishes altogether informs us that she’s a vampire and he’s wrecked her bed so she just has to wander about until he graciously sends her head on a holiday a few minutes later. Our first Hammer Scream comes early on and is courtesy of a toothy sex git who probably deserved to have it torn from his throat.


As the credits roll I am given double cause for concern as in addition to Sir Pete’s reduced role I spy that one John Forbes Robinson from Legend Of The Dancing Hopping Vampires is also in it. If you don’t recall my not inconsiderable distaste for his big silly self, well, there you have it. I’ve just declared it. Introduced to Cushing, we learn that he’s really just background noise as the film is ultimately a vehicle for the undeniably enthralling Ingrid Pitt. Another Hammer Staple box can be ticked off as within moments we have an INSTANT CARL. Carl, Hans, Paul, Anton – there’s always one...


Moments later (I should mention this is all set at a thoroughly boring looking party) the film’s lesbian agenda is confirmed as one male character comments that dear Ingrid (whose character boasts names innumerable and shall be ‘Ingrid’ throughout) is in fact checking out his girlfwife who, like Ingrid, ALSO HAS OVARIES. An awfully pale Forbes-Robinson enters in a black and red cape and you begin to wonder if there might be something suspicious about him. Also he’s a vampire. At first I thought it might be a sort of red herring, something to throw us off the scent. After all, most of the characters in this film are...shhhhh...(not heretosexual). But no, yeah, he’s totally a vampire. Fangs and everything.


One thing these early scenes hammer (hehehe) home is how much Cushing changed physically in the immediate wake of his wife Helen’s death. Here, around a year beforehand, he is his classic, handsome self, but Twins Of Evil (from a year or so afterwards) presents the later, gaunt and altogether mesmerising Cushing who’s perfectly suited to just about any major villain or even in that film’s case a hero who’s hard to root for.

Now, one of the defining images I had for Hammer before I really began digging into its canon was that sex and gore were the films’ primary ingredients, though a few  years’ study has proved that to be the opposite. The majority of Hammer’s 60s output is at best thoughtful, tasteful and often iconic, and at its worst inoffensively redundant or straight-up bad, but it wasn’t until it rolled into its last decade of filmmaking that that nudity quotient really became a calling card, and in terms of mainstream exposure it is this film that serves as that calling card. This isn’t heaving cleavage, this is teeth marks on bared breasts, and it’s less an obsession with sex than smut. Vampirism, as these films go, carries certain sexual connotations by default – this increase in fleshtime is titillation.

The basic scenario isn’t much different from the main Dracula series and on the whole it’s not that compelling either. I would go as far as to say, for all its revolutionary attitudes towards the presentation of sexuality within that medium, it still manages to feel overfamiliar and even a little stale. The typicality of the predator role has been reversed but the victim remains the same. A Hammer film with male vampire fodder may have fared a little better, historically, and I can imagine that the studio thought they’d struck a goldmine with this new “this time, the vampire is a WOMAN...A GAY WOMAN” mindset, not to mention a way of prolonging the ailing franchise, but it’s little more than opportunistic and exploitative from a group that really should know better. Like I said, it’s a solid showcase for Pitt, but not in any real way a good film.


Honestly, once Sir Pete left I basically turned off upstairs. The film ran apace but I didn’t engage with this like I did with Twins Of Evil. Still, I noticed another Hammer Staple in the off-roaded horse and cart, as well a reuse of that shot that appears in Twins Of Evil of the woodland shed in the opening prologue with the broom outside. There’s, um, also, well, there’s a horse named Jupiter, which is cool I guess...

Um...

Yeah. Oh, I was at least mildly amused by another imitation of subversion by having Ingrid’s portrait disingtegrate rather than her actual vampire self like in the rest of the Hammer set, but I’m clutching at straws here and rather fancy nipping off for a sandwich.

Ultimately, Sir Pete is superfluous in this ‘un, and really there’s nothing to see. Well, no, there’s piles and piles of naked ladies to see if that’s your bag, but you’re not on the Naked Ladies Appreciation Society’s website (and if you ARE reading this there, I did NOT authorise this reproduction, you pesky boob fans!)

Skip it.

Last up...



Last night’s final screening (you know, for me and all the dust bunnies in my living room) consisted of Hammer’s second “Dracula” film, The Brides Of Dracula, in which neither Christopher Lee or some gangled substitute make an appearance. Instead, Cushing (as the thoroughly heroic Van Helsing, allowing me to cheer him on without so much as a trace amount of guilt for the first time this night) turns his attention to Baron Meinster, a rather crap vamp who’s making for himself an army of subservient lady wives… and a whole heap of trouble! (That’s how you speak if your life is one big long comedy trailer).



Amongst his conquests is a little French teacher of a thing who agrees to marry him after nothing more than a kiss of the hand, a pair of indistinguishable raven-haired waifs (who Van Helsing is quick to burn alive, er, undead) and, most disturbingly, his own mother, especially when you consider the whole sexual element of cross-gender vampirism.


Now, there, SEE, ya got me doing that! Sigh. I was supposed to watch this film as part of my A-Level Media Studies course way back in my youth but seeing as it wasn’t on DVD then we settled for Horror Of Dracula instead. I’ve not seen it ’til now, and I couldn’t help treating it like the type of film you’re usually exposed to on a course of education. As such, I felt compelled to address (up in my thoughtscape) that the fact the heroine was wearing a red dress in the final scene meant she was in DANGER, as well as developing half-hearted notions about gender scrutiny and identifying symbols and all manner of involuntary media studies reactions. This is the bedrock of film criticism but, as I'm sure you've gathered, it's not how I operate.


That’s not to say that I didn’t enjoy the film, because despite Lee’s absence it still manages to be one of the better films in the troubled Drac Canon and the face melting, windmill-focused antics of its finale are particularly thrilling, but I couldn’t help feeling a little worn out by it and didn’t make a lot of notes, though I did enjoy seeing Michael Ripper’s childface and there’s a brief appearance by Henry Oscar whose stiff theatrics make the lines “you shameless little hussy” and “I’m no tenant of yours, you young jackass” a riot.



Other than that, it’s the usual yada yada yada, with top notch direction and photography and not a lot to fault. In the end, Vampire Lovers sort of ruined things for me and Twins Of Evil surprised me altogether by setting a benchmark right off the bat. Also, that bat I just mentioned? It’s a vampire bat. Geddit?

NEXT WEEK: AMICUS!

Review: Paul McNamme
Images: Marcus Brooks

Saturday, 3 March 2012

HAMMER FRANKENSTEIN FRIDAYS: THIS WEEKS COMPETITION: 'THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN' COLOUR STILL UP FOR GRABS!

ANOTHER GREAT STILL TO BE WON COURTESY OF HORRORUNLIMITED.COM!

Each rare photograph that is offered as a prize in the HAMMER FRANKENSTEIN FRIDAYS competition is developed on professional Kodak ENDURA Metallic paper. It has a glossy finish and striking appearance. This creates an image with exceptional visual interest and depth. In addition to delivering rich, vibrant colors and flattering flesh tones, this exceptional paper offers century-plus image stability.... and it's yours for free in our competitions posted every two weeks!
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...