Friday, October 8, 2021

Blackula Part II

 IV


Synopsis (Spoilers) The film opens in Transylvania to flashes of lightning and driving rain. Inside an appropriately spooky castle, Prince Mamuwalde and his wife Luva are escorted to an ornate dining table by Count Dracula himself. Mamuwalde is seeking the Count’s support for his African nation to be recognized by the courts of Europe and to put an end to the slave trade. Unfortunately, Dracula has a more...confederate opinion on human bondage, and starts to appraise Luva as a potential servant as an unimpressed Mamuwalde gives a glaring look of disapproval.


“Sir, I suddenly find your cognac as distasteful as your manner!”


The opportunity for a peaceful exit from this attempt at humiliation is snuffed out as Dracula and two goons descend upon Mamuwalde and his wife. After a brief struggle (in which Mamuwalde delivers a Trek-esque double-fisted blow to the upper back of one of the goons), he is overcome and struck unconscious. The numerous brides of Dracula, in some truly F-tier makeup, descend on Luva; Dracula himself delivers the vampire’s bite to Mamuwalde. The bite of Dracula transfers his vampirism to the African prince, an eternal thirst, as well as bestowing the name Blacula on him before shutting him away in a locked coffin. Luva is confined in the same room, doomed to watch until she dies of starvation and thirst.


Cue the really cool animated title sequence with some absurdly funky music - This song slaps.


The movie resumes in the present day; Two very... flamboyant American men (one white and one black) are being shown around the house by a caretaker. The two men agree to purchase everything in the house, intending to lean into the “camp” of Dracula in order to resell at steep markups. The guide assures them that Dracula was no legend, but was in fact very real. The two men are brought into a hidden room, which by coincidence was the same room as before. They insist on taking the coffins in the room with them to Los Angeles.


Their curiosity (and desire for a replacement for a guest bed) leads one of the two to open the coffin containing Mamuwalde; the other, in an attempt to pry open another crate, cuts his arm. The coffin lid slowly rises, and the ashen-faced Mamuwalde emerges from the coffin, fangs fully bared. The two men, distracted by their poor attempt at first aid, notice the predator too late - escape is quite impossible and they are quickly overwhelmed by Blacula’s superior strength and drained to death. Blacula looks upon his kills, perhaps slightly horrified by his savagery, but the feeling quickly passes as he puts on an appropriately spooky cape found amongst the collection. He laughs heartily as he lies back in his coffin.


A group of three (two women, one in a very curious purple cloak, and one man) are shown the body of the black man (Bobby) drained in the prior scene. As the woman in the purple cloak reveals her face, a concealed Blacula instantly sees her as if he were his wife Luva. The man in the group stays with Bobby, revealing himself as Dr. Thomas of the “Department of Scientific Investigation.” Dr. Thomas starts to investigate the body, including the deep puncture wounds on the neck and the total lack of blood in the body despite not having been embalmed. 


Meanwhile, the two women (Michelle and the woman in the purple coat) part ways on the street; the camera follows the woman in purple as she makes her way along an abandoned street at night. She collides with Blacula, who believes that she is his Luva. Terrified, she runs away and is pursued by Blacula into the city night. A distracted Blacula, finding her purse, is struck by a taxi cab, allowing her to get away. The taxi driver, a black woman, clearly crosses a line by calling Mamuwalde “boy” in a fit of frustration; needless to say, she does not last long. The woman in purple (Tina) makes it to her home, where she is rejoined by Michelle.


Blacula, seeming relatively well-fed, strolls across his warehouse lair, clutching Tina’s purple purse. He shuts himself back in his coffin, still holding it close to himself.


Dr. Thomas’s investigation continues at a local police station; he is brought into the morgue to examine the body of the taxi driver from the prior night. He finds two bite marks on the woman’s neck, and observes the total lack of blood in her veins. He then asks for the files on the two men (Bobby and Billy) from before, but the reports are lost. Without other leads, he arranges to autopsy the men.


Dr. Gordon Thomas, Michelle (his girlfriend), and Tina (Michelle’s sister) meet in a club that evening to celebrate Michelle’s birthday (the scene includes a nearly-full musical performance). Mamuwalde, appearing as mortal as possible, appears at the club to return Tina’s purse. Without a clear idea of what her attacker looked like, she invites Mamuwalde to join her friends at their table - His ability to charm is unmatched. The party is interrupted as Dr. Thomas learns that Bobby’s body has disappeared from the mortuary. Mamuwalde, upset by the flash of a camera, tries to leave - Tina follows him. They agree to meet again in the club the next evening. 


The photographer, an employee of the club, returns home to develop the photos she had taken… in which Mamuwalde was curiously absent from every shot. As she ponders over the man’s absence, Blacula attacks, taking the photos even as he feeds on the woman. The photographer, near death, stumbles out of her house to be discovered by a white police officer. Unfortunately for the man, she had already been turned, and she sank her teeth into the policeman’s neck.


Dr. Thomas, thwarted in his attempt to exhume Billy’s grave legally, resolves to dig up the body that night without delay. Meanwhile, Tina is visited by Mamuwalde, who cannot wait to see her. Like any good vampire, he asks to be let in. He confesses his feelings, believing her to be his wife; she hesitates to reject the idea out-of-hand. He tells her of his mission 200 years ago to end the slave trade, of his failure, and of the curse of undeath put upon him by Count Dracula. He requests her, the supposed reincarnation of Luva, to rejoin him. She rejects the appeal; Mamuwalde says she must come to him freely with love or not at all, and starts to leave, but Tina stops him and asks him to stay. They embrace.


In the graveyard, Dr. Thomas and Michelle are hard at work digging up the body of Billy McCoy. On opening the coffin, an undead Billy (with green face makeup reminiscent of Dracula’s brides) lunges out and attacks Gordon. Gordon drives a stake through Billy’s heart, killing him permanently. There is now no doubt; vampires stalk Los Angeles. Gordon comforts Michelle as they consider the situation. They set out to autopsy the cabbie, hoping that they will be able to prove his theory to Police Lieutenant Peters. 


At the morgue, the cabbie wakes from death and rises from the gurney, violently attacking the medical examiner. Across town, Mamuwalde and Tina part for the evening - After all, it is almost daylight.


Dr. Thomas and Peters arrive at the morgue and discover the grisly scene; blood stains the walls and floor. The cabbie, lying in wait under a shroud, tries to attack when revealed but is repelled by a crucifix and struck down by the light of the morning sun peeking through the window. Peters is convinced and agrees to act on the threat.


That evening, Tina, Dr. Thomas, and Michelle are back in the club; Mamuwalde joins them. Dr. Thomas starts to interrogate Mamuwalde about whether he has any interest in the dark arts; Michelle asks him directly if he believes in the existence of Vampires. Gordon tells Mamuwalde that the police are searching for the vampire’s coffin. Somewhat abruptly, Mamuwalde gathers Tina and leaves. Gordon, told by a friend at the club about the photographer’s disappearance, investigates her home. He discovers the photos, and remembering that night, realizes that Mamuwalde is the vampire he is looking for.


As Mamuwalde and Tina talk in her apartment, Dr. Thomas bursts in and tries to attack Mamuwalde. Gordon is no match for the vampire’s strength; Blacula escapes into the night and easily kills a pursuing policeman. Later, the police come across Bobby wandering the streets; Gordon and the Police Lieutenant leave to pursue, leaving Michelle and Tina behind. Bobby escapes into the night but is eventually tracked back to the warehouse where his and Billy’s bodies were discovered. The men are quickly surrounded by a whole pack of vampires (who are quite immune to revolver rounds). Cornered, Gordon and Peters are only able to escape by throwing oil-filled lamps at the vampires (which helpfully burst instantly into flames). While escaping, they encounter Blacula, who states he could easily kill them but “has business elsewhere,” transforming into a bat and flying away.


Dr. Thomas and Michelle eventually convince the emotional Tina to help them end the vampiric threat. Somehow, Blacula is able to communicate with Tina while in bat form, compelling her to leave the apartment and follow him. With a blank expression on her face, she walks through the city to an underground chemical processing plant. The police spot her and report her location to Gordon, Michelle, and Peters, who rush to catch up with her. In the plant, Tina reunites with Mamuwalde, and they share a kiss, but their moment is immediately interrupted by sirens and a swarm of police. A policeman catches up to Blacula and Tina, firing into the fleeing couple - Tina is mortally wounded; Mamuwalde then kills the officer in a rage. With no other option, Mamuwalde bites her on the neck, attempting to preserve her in undeath.


Swearing vengeance, Blacula begins killing his pursuers, shrugging off bullets and effortlessly staying one step ahead of the police. Gordon and Peters discover Blacula’s coffin; Unfortunately, as Gordon opens the coffin lid and Peters bears down with a wooden stake, Tina is revealed to be in the coffin instead; She is impaled and dies. Blacula corners the two men, giving him the chance to look upon Tina’s again-mortal body. Struck by grief, he refuses to attack and instead begins to ascend the stairs leading out from the chemical plant. In the light of the morning sun, he quickly wilts and dies, dissolving into insects and bones.


V


What worked:


  • Casting: William Marshall was an excellent choice to play Blacula, combining regal sophistication and dignity with a certain menace and unnatural strength. His Mamuwalde was capable of love and tenderness and had a certain vulnerability with Tina that is absent from many portrayals of arch-Vampires. Marshall also provided an imposing physical presence as well as a rich, deep baritone voice - It is not impossible to see him as a plausible alternative to Darth Vader, but able to inhabit the place of both David Prowse and James Earl Jones simultaneously. Thalmus Rasulala was also very effective as the cool, collected, and intelligent Dr. Thomas - A worthy Van Helsing, even if a very distant cousin.


  • Music: The music in Blacula is solid, combining early-70s funk with shades of gothic horror. Granted, music in Blaxploitation films can be difficult to judge fairly when inevitably compared to Issac Hayes’s score for “Shaft,” but this soundtrack is consistently good. The title song in particular is outstanding; overall, Blacula’s soundtrack is a definite strength.


  • Pace/Directing: The direction of this film is reasonably good; shots are generally well-composed, action scenes are clear without relying on disorientingly fast cuts, and the movie moves along at a tight pace. Overall, one might say that this movie is economical in its plotting and directing, but I think this works in its favor; the film rarely drags and is easy to follow. 


What didn’t work so well:


  • Makeup: The film’s overall special effects were fine - This film was a low-budget affair, but it rarely felt cheap. However, the character makeup (specifically for the undead) did feel cheap. Vampires frequently appeared in shades of green reminiscent of cartoon characters about to vomit, facial hair was applied unevenly over makeup, and even Blacula’s makeup looked bad at certain points. This may be a small quibble, but it can be hard to fear a swarm of undead killers when many have the complexion of Kermit the Frog.


  • Scares: This movie was able to create tension, but I think it fell somewhat short when it came to the fear factor. Mamuwalde could be scary, but his entourage was not. The film also fell somewhat short when it came to using the medium to enhance the horror inherent to vampires; I don’t think resorting to jump scares would have worked, but a few more dutch angles and lingering moments of quiet terror could have added to the overall effect.


  • The Ooof Factor: This movie is quite progressive when it comes to race, almost all major roles are portrayed by Black actors and the film rarely resorts to stereotypes. It was also relatively progressive in terms of gender roles, or at least not regressive. However, this movie is significantly less sensitive when it comes to its portrayal of gay men - This depiction crossed far into offensive/cringe territory at least a few times and pulled me out of the experience. 


VI


At the outset of this film, we are asked an interesting question - What if Dracula, along with all his other sins, was also one step removed from Nathan Bedford Forrest in his outlook on race? I think this helps set the tone for a movie that convincingly presents a sophisticated, confident Black Man as an arch-vampire stalking Los Angeles in 1972. Blacula’s predator is evil, yet restrained and erudite; violent, yet capable of real vulnerability and affection. Blacula is a walking contradiction; unlike the Count, he still seems to possess the humanity of Mamuwalde at some level; heartbroken, he opts for self-immolation rather than a last-ditch attempt to take revenge. He’s complex, suave, and cool, a man simultaneously out of time but also capable of thriving in any era.


I think William Marshall carries this movie quite well; his charisma and charm as Mamuwalde is impossible to ignore in any scene he’s in, and Blacula can be very intimidating. This is a performance that still holds up well, with some good cast performances alongside it. In all honesty, it can be a little difficult to take a movie seriously when its title is Blacula, but there’s an effort here, and this is not a farce. The city setting is believable, appearing lived-in and working-class without falling into exploitative shots of “the ghetto” as some other films in the genre might.


When considered as a horror film, I’m not sure that I would call Blacula “scary.” Granted, this was the early 70s, but films like Psycho and Rosemary’s Baby were already around. It’s a little hard to recommend Blacula as a pure horror experience, but overall I would recommend the movie as a fun thriller with a funky soundtrack and an interesting twist on the classic Dracula story. The movie goes along at a good pace, not wasting time, and the ending is satisfying. It also serves as an interesting entry point for blaxploitation, a film situated at the crossroads of Hammer Horror and Sweet Sweetback. It’s a fast 90 minutes, and can be seen for free on Pluto TV - Consider it for this Halloween season if you’re in the mood for something fun and a little corny. 


Score: 3 Velvet Vampire Capes (out of what, it’s hard to say. It’s way easier to recommend than a direct-to-video Disney sequel, that’s for sure)


As a postscript, the blaxploitation genre did not last long. A year later, Scream Blacula Scream would be released, with Marshall reprising his role but with a different director, attenuated production schedule, and significantly lower budget; reviews were far less favorable. 1971-1974 would be the crest of the genre, with films such as Cleopatra Jones, Foxy Brown, and Super Fly attracting large audiences and making huge profits on relatively small production costs. However, the contradictions inherent in the system had already started to appear - Black intellectual and civil rights leaders turned on the genre almost immediately, and Black audiences came to resent the sameness of the roles and the cheapness of the films. So many films in the genre were made *at* Black people, rather than by or for them; thus, by 1976 Blaxploitation was nearly spent. Younger black audiences had already turned their attention to Kung-fu films among other things, and in a short time everyone’s attention would be drawn to a certain  high-fantasy/science fiction movie directed by the “American Graffiti” guy - The heavy-handed reassertion of the studio system and the collapse of the auteur director-driven film industry was right around the corner. It is interesting to survey what emerged from a relatively brief moment in American film history when the sky was wide open; one wonders if such a period of unrestrained experimentation simultaneously accessible by a mass audience will come around again. Somewhere, a specter haunts a green-screen soundstage at Disney Marvel Studios… Or, at least, one might hope.

Blackula (1972) The Cabinet of Dr. Berry Gordy Part I

 Blackula (1972)

The Cabinet of Dr. Berry Gordy


    Reviewers Note:  Some of you may remember Mike as one of our guest editors from this summer. When he offered to do a guest review of Blackula I was interested but this review has blown away my expectations.  So I'm posting it first and my own review will be posted on Saturday.  

Author’s note: A few of you may remember me from a series of reviews covering Disney’s animated sequel machine that ruled the direct-to-DVD market in the early- to mid-2000s. This review will be a little bit different - This movie is more watchable, and I believe it also deserves more respectful consideration given its location in place and time. 


I


Political economist and certified cool guy Karl Marx observed that “capitalism sows the seeds of its own destruction” - That given sufficient time, the internal contradictions contained in the existing order would give birth to a new synthesis better-suited for survival. While not as geopolitically fraught, movements in the arts have undergone similar cycles of decline and replacement; audiences and tastes change, or world events make certain forms of expression gauche. In “classical” music, the decline of the patronage system in the late 18th century and the rise of egalitarian and nationalist political movements at the start of the 19th helped bring about the rise of the romantics - Composers who wore their hearts on their sleeves and could appeal to mass audiences instead of the courtly realm of the Great and Good. In the visual arts, Art Nouveau spoke to an optimistic, rapidly industrializing world at (relative) peace with a burgeoning and increasingly sophisticated middle class, right up until the Kaiser learned that the mass of trains filled with stony, grim-faced men heading west to the French frontier could not be recalled. And, more relevant to this story, the Hollywood of big studios and the Hays code was an extremely successful system that exercised autocratic control over mass culture... Until bored audiences, foreign films, TV, and antitrust laws blew it apart.


The studio system of the 30s, 40s, and 50s was successful but fragile, relying on a lack of competition from other forms of media and a relatively stable clique of top-tier players (Warner, MGM, Fox, etc.). It also relied on anticompetitive business models and a deeply unequal relationship with theaters - If those theaters weren’t outright owned by the studios themselves. Bundling distribution deals (studios selling movies to theatres in packages of five) meant that quality often took a back seat to quantity for the three to four “B-movies” in the package - Films more likely to be skewered by unpretentious midwesterners and their robot pals than to appear in Criterion box sets. Actors themselves had little choice but to commit to a particular studio for multi-picture deals, and extracting yourself from a contract for a passion project or change of career direction was difficult at best (all other thoughts about the modern film aside, it’s unlikely that Robert Pattinson would have been able to pivot from Twilight to The Lighthouse in the 1940s). However, for the most part, the system worked: Prestige films brought middle and upper-class audiences to theaters and earned the industry credibility, while low-budget monster films and westerns made money through sheer margins. 


As mentioned before, numerous forces came together to topple the studio system and create a new environment for filmmaking in the 1950s and beyond. The bundling distribution scheme came to an end shortly after 1948, when the Supreme Court ruled against Paramount (and the anti-competitive business model of the industry more generally) and affirmed the need for a wall between film producers and theaters. Television began to cut into audiences; after all, why go to a drive-in to watch a crappy western when an equivalently crappy western was on at home? Of course, an attempt at reinvention was inevitable, and Hollywood’s answer was the epic picture, a cinematic experience on ultra-wide film that could not be duplicated at home. To the industry’s credit, some of the greatest films of all time emerged from this period, films such as The Bridge on the River Kwai and Lawrence of Arabia among others. However, these expensive films were financially risky, and even ambiguously successful outings like Cleopatra could not be brushed off as easily as an underperforming B-movie. Finally (and most relevant to our story), audiences were becoming weary of movies operating under the stifling moral strictures of the Hays code - They wanted something more real.


II


The Hays Code was Hollywood’s attempt to make an end-run around looming federal regulation of films in the early 1930s. Lawmakers and moral leaders were becoming increasingly hostile to films that, in their minds, could usher in moral degeneracy and societal breakdown (as an off-the-cuff example, the 1925 adaptation of Ben-Hur has a lot more boob than the 1959 adaptation). Rather than face the real possibility of government censorship (the Supreme Court having ruled in 1915 that films were not protected by the first amendment), the film industry created a self-censorship system that they hoped would mollify critics. First, a list of “do’s and don’ts”, followed by the more formal and legally binding Hays Code, put strong limits on what could and could not be shown in movies. The penalties for violating the code were severe, and even otherwise-disreputable Poverty Row studios bent the knee. 


The code can be shocking to a modern reader; only portrayal of “white slavery” is mentioned as taboo, and “miscegenation” is forbidden. Drug use could not be portrayed, and the use of alcohol was permitted only when essential to the plot or characterization. Crime and criminals could not be portrayed in a sympathetic light - The good guys always won, and lawbreakers always got their just desserts. Films had to be morally unambiguous, patriotic, and while not explicitly religious, had to be properly god-fearing. The actual code is reproduced here.


As the studios declined in the 1950s, the code began to decline with them. Foreign films did not operate under the same rules, and could portray much more nuanced and “adult” versions of life. Television was also outside the code. The censors had been largely discredited when the second Red Scare crashed and burned, and as studios ceded more and more ground to independent producers, the code became a dead letter. Directors began to push against the boundaries of the code earlier in the 50s, but by the end of the decade the rules had changed entirely, and audiences were more than willing to follow. Whole new genres emerged, revisionist takes on old subjects became dominant, and the broader counterculture could count on another medium of expression to overthrow the old order.


Indeed, as the Hays Code passed into history, filmmakers and independent studios began to question whether realism was enough to keep audiences in seats. Instead, they asked, could we succeed by going beyond realism, offering a lurid world of sex, drugs, and crime that was only adjacent to reality? Such films had appeared before 1930, but it was in the 1960s that the true exploitation film came into being. Cheap, shocking, and sexy, these movies could claim a niche where they were unlikely to be supplanted by TV and could draw large audiences looking for a more downscale alternative to director-driven art films. These films would also start reaching audiences once ignored by Hollywood, including Black audiences. The stage was set for the rise of Blacksploitation as a genre.


III


Author’s note: This section draws heavily on the excellent essay “The Rise and Fall of Blaxploitation” by Ed Guerrero. If you’d like to read it yourself, check your local library or a certain… hub. Of sci. Also, I feel like it should be said that the author is a white millennial from a very white state; do with this what you will.


The relationship between Hollywood and Black audiences before the 1960s was one of marginalization and explicit racism both in production and finished product. Roles for Black actors were limited to insulting archetypes lifted straight from the minstrel shows of the 19th century; these archetypes persisted well into the 1940s and beyond, even into children’s animated entertainment (in the long arc of me reviewing stuff everything cycles back to Disney, although as far as I know “Song of the South” never received a direct-to-DVD sequel. Well, maybe in Europe). The black actors that did find work faced a difficult choice - Work within the system and face disapproval in their own community (as an example, the Oscar-winner Hattie McDaniel), or take a less conciliatory tack and risk being shut out of the industry entirely (Paul Robeson). Black directors were unheard of, and studio leadership was entirely exclusionary; movies were not marketed to Black audiences and their place in the viewing market was incidental.


As the civil rights movement began to pick up steam and as a Black middle class began to emerge across the country, Hollywood slowly took notice. The minstrel archetypes that had dominated film were no longer acceptable in light of increasingly vocal and visible protests and demonstrations across the country. Black audiences were certain to reject these stereotypes and even white audiences started to cringe at portrayals that had been standard 20 years prior. Movie ticket buyers were becoming more diverse, and (cynically) the film industry realized that its growth would have to account for this new viewership. The answer at first was a new Black archetype, most notably given form by Sidney Poitier. This new Black man was confident, erudite, and morally upstanding, a complete 180-degree turn from the old stereotypes. The audience's response was initially positive, and it seemed like a corner had been turned.


Author’s note - While his place in film history is complex, Sidney Poitier is an outstanding actor and I believe his work speaks for itself. I highly recommend “In the Heat of the Night.”


Returning to Marx’s adage, the problems with this New Man were apparent almost immediately. Black audiences questioned the integrationist position of Poitier’s characters, who could succeed as a Black man in a White man’s society but not exist outside of that society (black separatism had started to gain real credibility in the late 1960s as the classic civil rights movement collided with an increasingly-strident white backlash). There was also the question of his character’s chaste relations with female characters - The New Man was still constrained by White fears of Black virility and was thus consigned to sexlessness in films where white co-stars had romantic relationships (A more thorough and sophisticated analysis of this subject is given by James Baldwin - The essay Baldwin wrote about Poitier, partly an interview with the actor, appears in the book “The Cross of Redemption: Uncollected Writings”).


It was only a matter of time before the exploitation fad would shamelessly cross over to Black audiences. By the end of the 1960s, the movie industry was in a moment of crisis, with expensive failure after expensive failure leading to the near-collapse of big names like MGM, Columbia, and Fox. Tastes were changing, and exploitation films were cheap money makers that could buy time for studios to recover and regain relevancy. Black audiences made up larger portions of movie audiences and tended to be younger. At the same time, Hollywood had come under increasing pressure from the civil rights movement to diversify its hiring practices behind the camera. For the first time, Black directors would direct largely Black casts and could operate largely independently from studio interference during production (instead, studios would purchase independent films for distribution). The stage was set for Sweet Sweetback.


1970’s Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song was the first major hit in the genre that would come to be known as Blaxploitation. Directed by Melvin Van Peebles (who sadly passed this year), the film was a lightning bolt that immediately changed the American movie industry. Filmed for a production cost of less than $500,000, the movie had all the tropes that would come to define the genre: A confident, potent black man defying white power structures, comfort with portraying sex work and the drug industry, and shocking levels of violence. Reactions among the Black intelligentsia were equivocal at best, but the film was an undeniable commercial success; indeed, such a success that even major studios took notice. MGM quickly retooled an action movie they had in production (replacing the white lead with Richard Roundtree) and released Gordon Parks’ Shaft a year later. Shaft was a more conventional and less transgressive film; the titular character was not as morally ambiguous as Sweet Sweetback, although still possessing a bad-ass attitude and masculine coolness unthinkable for a Black role only a few years before. The film was a huge success, even among white audiences. The blaxploitation gold rush was on, as studios and distributors searched manically among independent Black directors and actors for the next big hit.


Thus, Blacula. Directed by William Crain, the film starred TV actor William Marshall (interestingly, Dr. Richard Daystrom on “Star Trek,” among other roles) as Mamuwalde, an African prince turned to vampirism by Count Dracula himself in the 1780s, then sealed away until reawakening in Los Angeles in 1972. Reviews were (and still are) mixed, but the film succeeded financially and maintains a cult following to this day. It also exists at an interesting crossroads - The collision of 19th-century gothic horror with the hip and funky metropolitan culture of the early 1970s.


Now we ask - Is this film an underrated gem of the post-Universal vampire film library? Or is the film more notable as a historical artifact, with its scares somewhat toothless? Let’s dive in.


Friday, October 1, 2021

Carmilla By Sheridan Le Faun

 Carmilla 

By Sheridan Le Faun


Joseph Thomas Sheridan Le Faun (That is one hell of a name) was born in Dublin on August 28th, 1814 to Thomas Philip Le Faun and Emma Lucretia Dobbin. His family was Huguenot, French Protestants who fled abuse and prosecution in French to settle in England and later Ireland. Sheridan was the middle child of three, having an older sister and a younger brother. He was also the grandson of playwrights, and his mother Emma was a published writer, most known for her biography of Charles Orpen, the founder of the first school for the Deaf in Ireland. So it is little wonder that he was writing poetry before he was even 15. His family moved around a lot due to religious and political upheaval in Ireland, specifically the Tithe War. In short, the Tithe war was an uprising over whether Catholic Irishmen should be taxed to support Protestant ministers and churchmen like Sheridan's father (On principle I say no.  It is wrong to tax the members of the indigenous religion to support the clergy of the settler-colonialists {I would argue it’s wrong to force people outside of your religion to pay for it’s upkeep in general but I suppose at this point we’re splitting hairs(I don't really have a problem with a system whereby tax dollars are used for the upkeep of old churches or as part of a conflict avoidance-system etc)}.  But of course, this is Great Britain, which ruleth the waves and crushes the Irish underfoot.  Granted, Sheridan’s family were literally refugees so that’s a bit different.)


Sheridan Le Faun studied law at Trinity College in Dublin and was elected Auditor of the College Historical Society. Strangely enough, he attended few lectures, instead, he studied from home and took examinations at the campus when needed. He was called to the bar in 1839 but never actually practiced law, instead preferring journalism. In 1838 he had written and published his first ghost story, in 1840 he was the owner of several newspapers. He married in 1844 to Susanna Bennett, daughter of a leading Irish barrister. In 1847 he publically campaigned against indifference towards the Irish Famine, writing a 40-page analysis bluntly calling it a national disaster, this cost him heavily and at the very least lost him a chance to run for Parliament and earned him enemies in the Tory Party (Because heaven forbid an Irishman protest the genocide-by-neglect of his people.). By 1856 he was living in a house owned by his in-laws and Susanna was suffering a mental breakdown. She would die after a hysteric attack in 1858 (Uh.  Okay, medical and historical note here.  “Hysteria”, from the root word Hyst for Uterus was a catch-all term 19th and even 20th-century doctors used to describe any illness or symptoms a woman might have that they could not be bothered to actually investigate or accept the actual existence of.  She probably had some sort of organic problem like cancer that they just dismissed because she was a woman and they were all, according to those doctors, prone to uncontrollable fits of fancy that originate in her women-parts.  By the way, this sort of bullshit where doctors don’t believe women when they say something is wrong continues to this day, and it is why women have poorer medical outcomes across the board than men.  Rant over, please continue with your regularly scheduled Review.). The details of the attack have been lost to history. This stopped Le Faun from writing until 1861 when his mother passed away. He then kept writing until his death by a heart attack in 1873. 


Le Faun wrote widely, writing historical fiction mostly set in Ireland as well as contemporary novels based on criminal biographies. His longest-lasting works are his horror stories, however.  He wrote the earliest locked room mystery series titled Uncle Silas.  Another notable title, the mystery historical novel The House by the Churchyard also has a great amount of horror in it.  Lastly of course is the topic of today's review: Carmilla, which was released in 1872. Le Faun is widely considered one of the fathers of the Victorian ghost story and having heavily influenced mystery and horror genres at the same time. I think Carmilla might be one of his longest-lasting legacies in literature and popular culture, especially considering how the character, or at least some version of her, keeps reappearing in movies, television, and other novels. Not to mention how it impacts vampire fiction as a whole. Let's summarize real quick, shall we? 


Carmilla is told to us in first-person narrative through the eyes of Laura, the only child of an Englishmen who settled on the eastern edge of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (Oh no). Her mother passed away when she was very young so she is close to her father. She has had, however, an isolated upbringing and because of this is rather lonely especially for the company of girls her own age (Which makes her vulnerable to the allure of Lesbianism? {read and find out}). This loneliness is made all the sharper when news that her father's best friend won't be visiting or bringing his niece, because of her sudden death (Oh that’s not good, but not uncommon in this time period…). What has caused her death, her fathers' best friend General Spielsdorf won't say (But the doctors probably called it “hysteria”{but the general didn’t}) but promises to explain later after a needed trip to Vienna. This loneliness is assuaged when a sudden carriage crash on the road in front of their home brings Carmilla, a girl Laura's age of aristocratic background, to stay with him while her Mother continues on a mysterious journey of her own. Laura is distracted by this when she realizes that she's seen Carmilla before in a dream she had when she was six when she had a nightmare of a beautiful woman slipping into bed with and attacking her. A woman with Carmilla's face. Carmilla claims to have seen Laura in a dream at the same time and starts charming her way into Laura's affections (Oh no!  Predatory Lesbianism!  This must be the Trope’s origin!)


As time passes Carmilla and Laura become closer but Laura can't help but notice that her friend has some odd habits, like not rising until well past noon. She also always sleeps with her room locked and seems affected by some kind of languid manner. She also never joins the family in their prayers and refuses to answer any questions about her past. Still, Laura is desperate for any company that isn't someone at least 15 years older than her and Carmilla is charming and affectionate enough to paper over these danger signs (Eh.  I mean, Atheism and Depression.  Wait, am I a red flag? {I don’t know do you also use elaborate ruses to insert yourself in other people’s families and then isolate your target while lying about your very identity to people?} Nyet!)


Danger signs they are too, because it's not too long before strange and awful things begin to happen. The daughters of the local peasants begin to die in their sleep. Carmilla shows no sympathy, even scolding Laura for joining in singing hymns for the dead. Strange signs show up, for example when a shipment of restored old paintings is brought back to their home, one of them a portrait of a Countess Karnstein that looks just like Carmilla. While Laura laughs it off and even hangs the portrait in her room as a keepsake of her friend... Unease starts to build. Then Laura starts taking ill and having terrible dreams of her own. Dreaming of a fell beast in the shape of a large black mountain cat that crawls into bed with her and drains her dry. Carmilla is found to have been sleepwalking at night but focuses on comforting Laura, but her comfort takes a strange and dark turn, as Carmilla whispers that even though Laura dies, Carmilla will carry her within herself (Creepy…). In the last dream, Laura has, a voice rings out from the darkness “Your Mother warns you of an assassin!” Laura wakes to see Carmilla at the foot of her bed... Covered from chin to waist to blood and wakes screaming. Which to be fair, who wouldn't? 


Laura is no Victorian maid however, she may live in a heap of stone and wood dating from the medieval period but it's still healthier than the average Victorian home (This is true.  Medieval peasant homes were way the fuck less toxic than just the paint in any Victorian home.  Lead flakes everywhere…{In this case it’s more a manor house} Same thing.  Plaster whitewash and paints made of natural pigments are way the hell healthier than lead paint everywhere.). For that matter, Laura has been exercising regularly since she was a small child and eating a healthy peasant diet instead of Victorian fare (Also a thing! When they had food that wasn’t pilfered by the nobility, peasants actually had a pretty healthy diet.  Lots of veggies, some grain, very very little sugar, abundant dairy and a little meat now and then.{To be fair she also drank a lot of tea, her Father insisted they do so to maintain their essential Britishness}). So she is not just gonna collapse from something as small as massive blood loss or the emotional shock of seeing her only friend covered in blood. Because she can take a hard shock… Unlike some protagonists.  On top of that, she has the kind of relationship where she tells her father about her weird dreams and Carmilla's weird idea of comfort! Her father does what any right-thinking parent does when their kid is sick and dreaming weird stuff besides, he calls a bloody doctor! Who then proceeds to listen to Laura and perform basic medicine!  The doctor examines Laura and finds two small pin-sized wounds in her upper chest, he then gives directions that Laura is never to be left alone and he needs to call in a specialist, which you know isn't that like modern medicine always needing specialists to actually get a treatment completed? 


It's at this point that General Spielsdorf returns and convinces Laura's family to join him at the ruin of the Karnstein manor. It's there he explains that some time ago, he met a woman and her daughter at a masquerade. Despite not seeing her face the mother convinced him that they were old friends and asked him to look after her daughter while she attended some mysterious business. The General's niece, a lonely girl excited at the idea of companionship her own age, convinced him to say yes (Oh no…{Oh Yes}). The girl in question charmed the family despite never rising before noon or joining them at their prayers. However, soon the girls of nearby villages began to die in their sleep and the General's niece took ill and died, her body empty of blood. The General went to Vienna to track down some vampire hunters and found the name of his nemesis: Mircalla Karnstein, whose grave had been hidden by an old lover. They dig her up and stake and behead her and Laura heals. 


Carmilla is a short story but a well-written one. Its main weakness lies in its narration style, which means that we don't really get shown the different characters but instead are told about them through Laura's eyes. Additionally the fact that Laura is the one narrating does drain a bit of the suspense out of the story in my opinion. The secondary weakness is an artifact of the time and places it was written in I feel. Laura is a very passive character and in the end is saved by the men around her and plays very little direct role in her own deliverance (Except for surviving.  I mean, massive blood loss…{sure but that’s passive, not active}). Mina in Dracula is a much more active character and Dracula is written only some 20 years later (Mr. Stoker, however, was queer as fuck and hung around with Lord Byron though… Little different from the Huguenot Widower in that respect.).  That said I respect Laura more than Aubrey, I’ll admit that. Much like Vampyre, this is a story very much carried by its villain.


Carmilla is the first-named woman vampire in English literature as far as I can hunt it down. That's not even her primary importance, if you ask me. Where Lord Ruthven is a harsh predator, often all but rampaging through society, Carmilla takes pains to camouflage herself, building a relationship with her main victim. She takes on the aspect of an abusive partner here, gaslighting and isolating her victim. Acting like an attentive, supportive friend in public but in private draining her victims dry and enjoying it. Because of this, Carmilla also takes on lesbian overtones, since she prefers female victims pretty much exclusively and her relationship with her main victims takes on sexual and toxic romantic overtones (Yeah, she is literally the Origin Story of that particular queer trope in literature.). Given the opinion society had of same-sex relationships at the time, it helped tie the idea of vampires to what was considered deviant behavior at the time and I think people preferred to pay attention to this rather than the abusive partner aspect in most adaptations (Well, that’s because domestic abuse was perfectly normal.  Even the doctor's gaslit women, all the time.  It was considered the forefront of medical science.)


While I've seen media that tries to reinvent Carmilla as a figure of female empowerment against male hierarchies (Usually in Aristocratic Girlboss form, the sort that needs to be unalived in a basement by the forces of the revolution…{but she’s already unalive?} Then she needs to be re-unalived {The stabbing will continue until rigor mortis sets in!}), I don't think that's the point of the character. Carmilla is a woman who preys and tears down other women, which isn't very feminist, is it? Instead, Carmilla is a predator who hides in that same hierarchy, using it as camouflage and cover for her own abusive and predatory acts. Carmilla frankly upholds the old power structure because it is the very environment that allows her to operate as she pleases.  It's more sophisticated and complex behavior than what we see in the Vampyre but it is the same basic behavior and we'll see more of it in Dracula. 


I enjoyed reading Carmilla a lot more than I did Vampyre, the text is easier to follow and the story is told in a much more interesting way. I think this is why Carmilla the character has stuck around, while Lord Ruthven was superseded by Dracula and faded away. That said there are profound weaknesses in the story and it does show its age by more than a little. If I had to grade it as a stand-alone story, it would be at best a C but the historical value of this lifts far above such a grade. I do encourage people to take a look for themselves and see if my comparison to an abusive relationship holds up. 


I hope you enjoyed our doubleheader opening of Fangsgiving!  Next week we’ll be stepping into a nonfiction overview of the Vampire mythos The Dead Travel Fast by Eric Nuzum.  This month’s theme and monster was chosen by our ever-wise patrons via poll at https://www.patreon.com/frigidreads Join us there for as little as a dollar a month to vote for themes, what books get reviewed and more!  Hope to see you soon.  Until then, stay safe and keep reading!


The Vampyre By Dr. John Polidori

 The Vampyre 

By Dr. John Polidori


Dr. John Polidori was born on September 7th, 1795 in London. He was the eldest son of Gaetano Polidori, a well-known Italian scholar and translator, and Anna Maria Pierce, an English governess; and ended up with three brothers and four sisters (Did all of them survive childhood?  Because let’s just say that the childhood hazards in early 19th century London were… numerous.{as far as I could tell yes}). Dr. Polidori started off his life at high speed, he graduated from the University of Edinburgh in 1815 before his 20th birthday with a medical degree, having defended a thesis on sleepwalking (Good job dude!). The very next year the famous Lord Byron hired him to be his personal physician and traveling companion (Traveling companion, huh?  Face it folks, the entire horror genre is queer as fuck, and there is no escaping it.{As far as I can find no one has suggested a romantic or sexual relationship between the two.  That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen but there’s not even any smoke…}). Dr. Polidori was part of that party in 1816 that was the start of Mary Shelly's Frankenstein, remember this because we'll come back to this. Towards the end of 1816, Lord Byron dismissed him and he spent the rest of the year and part of 1817 wandering Italy before returning to England. He spent four years trying to establish himself as a doctor or a writer and failed completely dying in 1821 widely assumed by suicide (Oh that… Fuck.).  


Now Dr. Polidori never meant for The Vampyre to see the light of day according to both him and Lord Byron. Remember that party? Well Lord Byron wrote a fragment of a story about a man using a traveling companion to hide evidence of his own death for some sinister purpose, but never wrote a good beginning or end for it. Giving up completely on it. Dr. Polidori claims he used it as inspiration for The Vampyre because a young lady that he refused to ever name dared him to do it. He claimed he left the full story with her and took off for Italy and later England when he parted ways with Lord Byron (Read: when Lord Byron broke up with him.{and fired him}). Somehow in 1818, the story ended up in a packet of documents that the owner of New Monthly, a magazine that was starting to flag against new competition and looking for a way to turn things around, like publishing a new Lord Byron story!  The owner of the magazine, against the advice of his own editor, published The Vampyre as Lord Byron's newest masterpiece. Well, it saved the magazine but completely outraged Lord Byron who publicly published letters crediting John Polidori as the author and calling the owner of the magazine a number of rather insulting names (Good on Lord Byron!)


By then it was too late, as thousands had read it and it kick-started a vampire craze that in some ways continues to this day. Now, there are a couple of interesting things to note here.  First of all, the name of the villain Lord Ruthven was used by Carolina Lamb, a cast-off mistress of Lord Byron in a story she wrote to mock Lord Byron. This strongly suggests that some of Dr. Polidori's resentments towards his boss were being aired here (Oh my catty Fellow-Queers, going all literary Mean Girls...). Second, are the changes that Dr. Polidori made to the Vampire myth. Vampires weren't unknown to English audiences, having appeared as Arabic or Eastern European monsters in various poems and such in the past, but there was no real agreement on what made a vampire, a vampire, in English literature. 


In Eastern Europe, the vampire was mainly a rural problem. Vampires mostly (but not only) arose when an evil person committed suicide. They were allowed to remain on Earth to bedevil the living, slipping out of their graves at night to prey on their families and friends. The cure was to dig them right back up, stake, and behead them. So the majority of vampires were peasants who preyed on other peasants (Fucking class traitor undead.{I think expecting loyalty from the undead is a little much} The Charge of Dead Men in WW1 says otherwise!{Those guys weren’t actually dead yet!}). Dr. Polidori instead made the vampire urban, aristocratic, and instead of preying on peasants under cover of night, preying on the upper-middle class that was close to aristocratic society but not really a part of it. He also added or at least intensified the sexual element of vampirism, Lord Ruthven is drawn to innocent women that he can corrupt before destroying; especially those in committed relationships, to maximize the amount of destruction he can do to others. His predatory actions are covered from sight by a veil of rank, power, and privilege and above all the silence of those who know (Might be some commentary on English society here…)


It's this version of the vampire that seems to have the most staying power honestly (For reasons that are obvious to everyone.). As it's the one that returns over and over in the last 200 years. A creature of the night that is not human but entrenched in human society to the point of being part of the top of the social pyramid, and using that to cover its ravening of humanity. We certainly see elements of this in Dracula, where the vampire is an aristocrat who preys on people lower down the social hierarchy than himself. When we think about it, there is certainly a space for such a monster in our modern lives isn't there (Jeffrey Bezos {I was actually thinking of Harvey Weinstein, R Kelly, etc.})? This is maybe why the monster in the story remains while the very passive hero of the story is all but forgotten. 


The story is told in third-person narration, mostly from the view of Aubrey, a young man who is described as viewing the world around him in deeply naive and romantic terms (Oh that sweet summer child…). He befriends Ruthven, but upon learning that he’s actually a terrible person who loves destroying innocent people’s lives breaks with him but not before foiling his designs on a young Italian lady. He takes off to Greece where he falls in love with a young lady, and it's there that he learns about the superstition of the vampire. It's not the elaborate superstition that we're used to but a rather straightforward and brutal one. Vampires are real, they are supernatural in their strength, speed, and hunger; and if you are out exposed in the dark of night, they will kill you and there's nothing you can do about it. So being inside before sunset, that's your only protection. 


Aubrey being an English Protagonist in Eastern Europe doesn't fucking listen to the natives (The original sin of all English protagonists, so it seems.{They do seem rather arrogant in most of the works I’ve reviewed huh?}) and only survives because his love comes out into darkness after him and sacrifices herself for him. Heartbroken, Aubrey does the most Victorian thing he can do: swoon into invalid sickness.  I shouldn't be too hard on Victorians, although they seem frail to my modern sensibilities.  After all, they live in homes that are 70% poison by weight, drink polluted waters, and breathe polluted air.  That can't be good for their ability to resist sudden assaults of any-type.  It's honestly a bloody wonder any of them survive long enough to procreate and raise children, so a bit of frailty should be understandable.  Still... They do seem to love swooning and becoming unable to care for themselves at any emotional or psychological shock. (I would comment further here but… this paragraph is perfection.)


At this point, Lord Ruthven reappears and cares for Aubrey and they mend their friendship agreeing to hunt vampires together. This ends up leading to Lord Ruthven seeming killed by bandits and he swears Aubrey to keep his death secret for a year and a day (Don’t do it bro!  You know what he is!). Aubrey agrees and Lord Ruthven dies laughing. Aubrey returns to Italy, finding the lady he had protected from Lord Ruthven has died, distressed, he returns to England and sinks into an understandable depression. Of course, then Lord Ruthven returns and invokes Aubrey's own oath against him while working his wiles on Aubrey's beloved sister. The stress of wanting to protect his sister and being unable to break his oath drives him mad (Why?  Just break your oath bro!  Seriously, that was bad faith in the worst way.{I’m not sure there may have been a supernatural element but it could just be Aubrey swooning over his honor, the story is unclear}), especially since he finds out that his sister is going to marry Lord Ruthven. Aubrey decides at this point to break his oath by writing a letter to his sister explaining everything but it's too late, Lord Ruthven has married his sister and murdered her. 


As you can see the story is very basic and if you read the original prose, it's very much a product of its time. Much is said in metaphor or cloaked in very purple prose. Meaning that a modern reader might have trouble following exactly what is going on. I honestly found it rather staid and kinda dry for a horror story. I would blame this on the period, but honestly, I've read the original Frankenstein and found it much better written and understandable. The biggest contribution here is the Vampire himself and Dr. Polidori does a wonderful job of crafting a memorable and despicable villain; if a rather simple and straightforward one. Lord Ruthven is simply a monster driven by its horrid hunger with barely anything covering those unwholesome appetites. The basic elements that make the vampire memorable are there but it's missing the spark, the dark flame that will carry it forward and mesmerize people for centuries. It's up to later writers like Bram to add additional complexity (And queerness) and motivation to the vampire. 


If I had to grade The Vampyre by John Polidori in a modern context, I'd have to give it a C- at best, which I can already hear my readership recoiling at the sheer gall and arrogance I'm displaying by that. The story is, however, very valuable in transporting the Vampire from the rural mists of Eastern Europe, a predator of peasants by peasants that can be safely ignored, into an aristocrat hunting in the very drawing rooms in the center of civilization as the audience of time understood it. Turning it into a creature of dread that the average reader had to realize they had precious little protection from. For that Dr. John Polidori deserves better than he got. But I suppose having created something that will remain in the public memory for centuries is a fairly good legacy and it is certainly a rare one. Next, in our opening of Fangsgiving we look at Carmilla but no need to wait, we're opening with a double header!