?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

So, as mentioned in my last post, I spent the earlier part of the evening at the opening instalment of the Bradford Fantastic Films Weekend. I bumped into matgb in the station, and then caught up with miss_s_b in the Media Museum bar, looking all Tank Girl-ish with a blond slanty fringe and bicycle-induced bruises, and accompanied by innerbrat! From the internet! Who scored exactly the same as me on today's Daily Mail poshness test, but nonetheless turned out to have a much posher accent than I have been reading her journal with for the past however-many-years-it-even-is now.

Anyway, we also saw a film! Which was excellent. It wasn't my first time for this one - not even on the big screen, actually, thanks to the Phoenix's late showings back when I used to live in Oxford. But it's probably something like eight to ten years since I saw it now, so it was lovely to have the chance to rediscover it.

The festival director introduced the screening, talking about what a horror classic this film is, and what a loss that Michael Reeves died the following year from a(n accidental?) drug overdose. And he was right - it was definitely a cut above what most horror directors were doing in the late '60s; especially the camera-work. This is obvious from the opening sequence, which appears to present a rural idyll, but gradually homes in on a regular banging sound which turns out to be the noise of someone putting the finishing touches to a hangman's gibbet - a disturbing contrast which really sets the mood for what follows. Throughout the film we get lots of interesting angles and imaginatively-composed shots, although it was a pity they'd felt the need to rely quite so heavily on day-for-night filming. When you've got a character delivering the line, "It must be important, for you to wait for him after dark", the effect is rather compromised if he's doing it in silhouette against a bright blue summer sky, dappled with altocumulus...

Some parts of the script are a bit clunky, especially when people are delivering historical exposition or characters are being established. But that's by no means out of the ordinary for horror scripts of this time. The brutality, though, definitely was out of the ordinary. It wasn't quite as unrelenting as I'd remembered, and was occasionally rather undermined by the use of bad fake waxy blood. But the bleakness of the ending in particular marks it out as quite different from what e.g. Hammer were doing in this period. On the face of it, the good guys have won. But rather than getting your standard-issue uplifting music and romantic embrace, we instead see both the hero and the heroine reduced to a state of near-insanity by the experiences they have been through, and the hero's friends looking on in horror and disgust. That must have been quite a shock to the original audience, and it certainly does suggest that Michael Reeves was gearing up to be a challenging director with some new ideas about how horror should be done.

Meanwhile, of course, we also get the WONDER that is Vincent Price. According to the pre-show talk, Michael Reeves actually wanted Donald Pleasence in the title role - and fair dos to him, because Pleasence would have been awesome too. Stuck with Vincent Price at the insistence of the studio, he basically made it perfectly clear to him that he wasn't the star he wanted, and insisted on Price toning down the greater excesses of his campness - despite the fact that Reeves was less than half Price's age, and this was only his fourth film. Price was so shocked at being spoken to like this that he actually did what Reeves said, and the result is that he oozes with menace and presence throughout, without ever turning into a cartoon villain. Wikipedia tells me that he later considered it one of the best performances of his career, and he may well be right.

PLUS we get Ian Ogilvy, dear to me in particular as Drusus in I Clavdivs, but also from many a happy Sunday morning watching Upstairs, Downstairs over my breakfast. And there are lots of thundering horses and frightened sheep and billowing cloaks and heaving bosoms and suggestively-placed pistols - not to mention the fascinatingly-precise and symmetrical curls of Matthew Hopkins' wig, which I can never quite tear my eyes away from. All in all, a damned fine start to the weekend.

Click here to view this entry with minimal formatting.

Comments

( 11 comments — Leave a comment )
the_lady_lily
Jun. 5th, 2010 12:21 am (UTC)
Oh! There was a Radio 4 radio play about the making of this film and the sheer struggle that working with Price was and how he and the director clashed and all the rest of it a couple of months ago, and it was excellent! I am glad that it is a film that deserves to have had a play made about it.
strange_complex
Jun. 5th, 2010 09:32 am (UTC)
Gosh, really? I wish I'd known about that. There certainly can't be many films which have the honour of having had plays like that made about them. Oh well, maybe it'll be repeated some time.
the_lady_lily
Jun. 5th, 2010 11:18 pm (UTC)
Ah, thank goodness for the internet. It was called "Vincent Price and the Horror of the English Blood Beast", and it appears to be downloadable here.
strange_complex
Jun. 6th, 2010 10:14 pm (UTC)
Thanks - that will be lots of fun to listen to now that I've seen the film recently.
goodqueenmolly
Jun. 5th, 2010 09:13 am (UTC)
I love that film, for all it's faults, and am delighted that some one else seems to regard as I do. I would watch Mr Price read stock prices frankly but sometimes his tendency to, shall we say 'over-play' got in the way, so the story of his performance in this film made me smile.

Edited at 2010-06-05 09:13 am (UTC)
strange_complex
Jun. 5th, 2010 09:35 am (UTC)
Mind you, his over-playing can be great value in itself some times. I especially like Theatre of Blood (1973) for that, where he is actually cast as a washed-up, incredibly camp and increasingly insane actor, so that it really makes a virtue of those very qualities in him. Brilliant film. I'm absolutely with you about the stock prices, though.
goodqueenmolly
Jun. 5th, 2010 03:30 pm (UTC)
Also Dr Phibes!
hollyione
Jun. 5th, 2010 09:32 am (UTC)
I thought there was too much gratuitous violence for my liking (even for Hammer-esque stuff). A lot of it was cut when it first came out.
strange_complex
Jun. 5th, 2010 09:41 am (UTC)
It definitely is quite brutal, but actually less so than I thought I had remembered. I guess maybe my frame of reference has changed since I last saw it. I think we saw the cut version last night - it was very clearly an original print, complete with lots of dust on the film reel and a few missing frames. But that's probably what I saw last time as well, since that was also in a cinema, so I don't think I found it less violent this time because I was seeing a more cut version.
hollyione
Jun. 5th, 2010 10:01 am (UTC)
It's probably more fun in a cinema too. I remember watching the pilot episode of Star Trek in a cinema to celebrate some anniversary or other, and it was far more compelling than watching at home!
strange_complex
Jun. 5th, 2010 10:05 am (UTC)
Yes, getting to see things you really love on the big screen is always worth the effort. The size of the pictures and quality of the sound helps a lot, but I think also that just being in a situation where you have to sit still and pay attention makes a big difference.
( 11 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

November 2018
S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars