BEFORE: Well, the calendar still says October, but I'm already planning for the end of the year, and the start of Movie Year 11. That means figuring out my February romance chain, and based on the films that I have already, plus a few that are on Netflix, I think I've figured out a good starting point and a good stopping point, though given the size of the chain it may have to start in mid-January, or drag into mid-March. It's unfortunate that February is the shortest month, but I've tasked it with covering one of the most common genres, the romantic film. Though I may be pushing the definition of what constitutes a romance film just a bit, I'm good with this chain - and the films I added as bridging material are probably available on iTunes (I'll check on that this weekend if I get the time) or, if luck is with me, they'll pop up on premium cable between now and then, it's certainly possible.
But luck is involved, because I can't burn a DVD from every premium channel, not since I got the new DVR in June. I've been running some tests, though, and some channels still allow me to record onto VHS and then transfer that tape to DVD, while certain others (cough - HBO - cough) run that signal that prevents duplication.
(Some channels run that signal, but I've developed a couple simple work-arounds, which I won't reveal here, because that could put an end to them. Anyway, I'm back on the case and I can start work on clearing my movie DVR again. Even with the larger storage drive, it was getting up near 75% full.)
Christopher Lee carries over from "Dracula: Prince of Darkness"
THE PLOT: When Castle Dracula is exorcised, it accidentally brings the Count back from the dead. Dracula follows the Monsignor back to his hometown, preying on the holy man's beautiful niece and her friends.
AFTER: There's a point in this film where the lovely Maria, young niece of the Monsignor, gets attacked by Dracula in the basement of the tavern, and she gets away from him, only when she comes up to the main floor of the pub, nobody believes her. Let me be clear, in this little town in Transylvania, where Dracula re-surfaces every decade or so, and the villagers lock their doors and close their windows every night just in case somebody found a way to bring Dracula back to life, they don't believe a woman when she says she's been attacked. Oh, if only there were some real-life story in the news that I could draw a comparison to, how insightful would that be as a commentary on our society and our collective problems with believing the stories of victims of harassment.
What part of the basement did this happen in, Maria? Was anyone else in the basement that could verify the alleged attack? How many beers did you have that night, Maria? Was that what you were wearing when you went down in the basement? The truth is that you came on to Dracula, isn't it, Maria? Turns out victim-blaming is nothing new, it was going on way back in the 1800's, even in remote areas like Transylvania. The question then becomes - why don't the people in the pub believe Maria, why can't they face what's going on right downstairs, literally below their feet? And it would be very ridiculous if the townspeople then reacted by saying, "Well, if Maria could accuse Dracula of trying to bite her neck, then she could accuse any of us of doing the same thing! So none of our sons, brothers and fathers are safe now, she could falsely accuse them all of being vampires!"
The answer has everything to do with the big, scary man that lives in the giant castle (I think you can tell where I'm going with this...) and nobody wants the gaze of Dracula to fall on them, so they blame the victim, or they pretend not to see the big castle or deal with what they know is going on inside of it, and it's for their own safety, or their own self-interest. Because if they did, then they'd have to get some pitchforks and some torches and deal with the monster themselves, and that's dangerous - it's easier to just sit at the bar and do nothing, because who cares if the town loses a couple of maidens or barmaids, there's a lot of them about, only that might not be the case if people turn a blind eye for too long. Eventually this little town in the Carpathian Mountains will be devoid of people, the monster will have consumed them all, and he'll move on to the next village and do the same thing all over again. So in the end, you've got to get your pitchforks and drive the evil villain out of town, and it won't be easy or fun, but it's the only thing that will save the country in the long run. Are we clear?
Now, how did Dracula get revived? He died in the last film by being drowned in his own castle moat, but about half an hour into this film, he's seen frozen in ice, up in the mountains. Huh? I thought his castle was on flat land, so how did he get into the ice at a higher elevation? Last time I checked, water ran downhill, not up. So for this to work, his castle had to be on a flat plain that was also up on a mountain, so a mesa? And then the moat had to have running water, like to be connected to a river, which as I said last night, is a rarity for a moat. Then that moat would have to drain out like halfway down the mountain, still at a high enough altitude to keep Dracula's body frozen in ice, so I'd say that's a bit of a stretch.
Then that ice also had to be a very specific thickness, thick enough to not unfreeze easily, but thin enough so that when the priest trips and falls on it, it cracks open, and allows the blood from his convenient head wound to drip right into Dracula's mouth to revive him. It's a one-in-a-million shot, but it has to happen for the story to continue. Now, you'd think that Dracula would be thrilled to be alive again, and therefore thankful to the Monsignor who had the crazy idea to perform an exorcism at his castle, but the Monsignor sealed the castle doors shut with a large cross, so Drac can't get back in, he's essentially homeless. Turns out the Prince of Darkness can't seem to look on the bright side of things, he's more of a circulatory system-half empty kind of guy. But hey, at least he got his voice back, he's talking again in this movie! I'm not sure why the poster shows him with purple skin, though.
So Dracula sets out to discredit the Monsignor, destroy his family and seduce his niece, Maria. There's an interesting wrinkle here, in that the main hero (Maria's boyfriend, Paul, who resembles a young Roger Daltrey) happens to be an atheist, so he clashes with the Monsignor at dinner over theological matters, but when the Monsignor realizes how badly he messed up by bringing Dracula back to life, Paul's the only one he can school in the methods of defeating a vampire. Which then leads to the question, what good is battling Dracula with a crucifix if the person holding it doesn't happen to believe in its power? Is it the shape itself that tortures him, or the faith of the person wielding it? Geez, Dracula would have a field day today with all the hipsters who either identify as pagans or Wiccans, or just say that they're "spiritual, but not all, you know, religious...".
Similarly, we're shown here that staking Dracula is pointless unless you also recite a prayer while doing it, or shortly thereafter. If you don't do this, then he can just pull up stakes (sorry...) and start over. See, this is what I mean when I say they're always changing the rules on battling vampires here. Christopher Lee himself reportedly said that this plot point was B.S., because in previous films all you had to do was drive that stake into a vampire's heart (or mid-torso, whatever...) and the destruction would then take care of itself. And this is also the first time I've seen Dracula use a priest as one of his thralls - you'd think that there would be something holy about them that would prevent this, but this one priest folds like a cheap suit. What is this movie, then, trying to say about the priesthood? That it's a noble establishment, but it's full of weak-minded people? That the temptations of the flesh sometimes come before spiritual concerns, even for the clergy? I suppose I'd have to agree with that theory.
(Yes, Dracula also had a man on the inside at the abbey in "Dracula: Prince of Darkness", but that man was not a friar or a priest, he was just that weird dude that the brothers found in the forest years before.)
To me it's a NITPICK POINT how an atheist can also believe in vampires. Doesn't the presence of a real vampire confirm that the dark forces of evil are real, and if that's the case, seeing as how the vampires are repelled by the crucifixes and other holy items, doesn't that prove that God is real? Now, of course I think both God and the devil are supernatural B.S., but if one were proven real, then I'd be forced to believe in the other, right?
Also starring Rupert Davies, Veronica Carlson (last seen in "Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed"), Barry Andrews, Ewan Hooper, Barbara Ewing (last seen in "Mute"), Marion Mathie (last seen in "Lolita"), Michael Ripper (last seen in "The Curse of the Werewolf"), Norman Bacon, John D. Collins, George A. Cooper (last seen in "Start the Revolution Without Me").
RATING: 5 out of 10 bloodshot eyes
No comments:
Post a Comment