The Ingrid Pitt Files: The Saint

0a7b2708a5a1963014448e46b53dfdb8--pitt-ingrid

I have been a worshipper of Ingrid Pitt since I discovered her. I’ve always thought women with attitude were the most beautiful and Ingrid had both traditional beauty and attitude in spades. Her early life wasn’t an easy one and included time in a concentration camp and escaping to Western Europe by the skin of her teeth.   This is probably what gave her the strength and confidence exuded on screen. We’ll talk more about that in the individual cases we see it in.

In this blog series, I’ll discuss Ingrid’s television and film roles, as well as her writing career.   Basically, anything I can get my hands on that she was directly involved in, I’ll be writing about.

Our first entry will have very little to actually do with Ingrid, though.

According to IMDB, Ingrid’s first acting credit (not on the stage) is an episode of the British TV series The Saint.

x240-Y-l

Ingrid was basically an uncredited extra in series 2, episode 14, “The Bunco Artists” which originally aired on 19 December 1963. The episode was directed by Peter Yates, who would go on to direct all kinds of famous movies that I’ve never seen because I don’t watch normal movies.

Title 'The Saint 2.14 The Bunco Artists' (1963)

In this episode, a pair of con artists with an impressively multi-layered con swindle a church out of all the funds it’s raised for upkeep. Unfortunately, the woman who works at the church is the mother of Simon Templar’s actress girlfriend and he decides to fix the problem. This involves jetting off to the south of France at an hour’s notice and affecting possibly the worst Texas accent I have ever heard in my life. The female member of the con duo was apparently American. She should have known she was getting taken from that accent alone. At any rate, the con artists get conned, the money is recovered, along with some extra so that the church can make all the repairs it needs and everyone lives happily ever after.

This was the first time I’d ever seen this television show and while it’s not really my cup of tea, it was entertaining.

I had no knowledge of The Saint in any of its numerous forms when I sat down to watch this, so it was a learning experience. However, after watching this show it’s clear why they chose Roger Moore to play James Bond later on. However, he had the smarminess turned up to 11 on this show. That’s too smarmy even for me and I think smarmy is hot.

tFIpUl6KCznM

Also, maybe Templar needs a hobby. It was cool when was being all heroic and stuff (and the climactic showdown had me in tears I was laughing so hard), but I couldn’t help but think, how does he fill his day? I mean, being smarmy doesn’t pay well and there’s only so many wrongs to be righted. Being that well put together does take time, but even after all that, there’s still HOURS left in the day. Is he secretly a knitter or something?

At any rate I found Ingrid.   She is credited on the IMDB as “poolside sunbather” and that’s really all their was too it. I couldn’t find a picture on line, but it’s a close up of her feet with her laying back in a beach chair. The shot lingers a few seconds, but no more. She did an excellent job of spraying on sun tan lotion, if I do say so myself.

Apart from that, well, hey, I’ve seen an episode of The Saint!

I just want to up and go to the south of France in an hour. Can I be Simon Templar’s girlfriend?

Advertisements

The Horror Heretic: The Invisible Man vs. Bride of Frankenstein

(The Horror Heretic is a blog series where I voice opinions about the horror genre that are unpopular.   Because I’m contrary like that.)

MPW-28035

I’m just going to start by blurting it out: The Invisible Man is a superior film to Bride of Frankenstein.

Let me get the disclaimers out of the way: I am in no, way, shape or form dissing on Bride of Frankenstein. It’s a work of art and one of the best films Universal made.   And I must admit here that I’m not a big fan of Frankenstein in general. I understand how important the book was and as a woman who writes horror I very proudly claim to be a daughter of Mary Shelley. But I also have lived my entire life in the age where the themes she tackles have been pounded so thoroughly into the ground that I’m tired of having the discussion, so Frankenstein stories that don’t involve Peter Cushing being evil are pretty boring for me. That does inform the opinion I am about the give to a degree.   Also, I’m not as familiar with the making of these movies as some of my readers will be, so I can only speak to how the movies feels to me.

781adfceb79963a13a054a39690030c1

This past Halloween, just by chance, I watched The Invisible Man and Bride of Frankenstein back to back and I puzzled over the differences for a good long while.   Comparing them is like comparing apples and oranges, but I felt like there was something I wanted to say about the differences. I felt like Invisible was a better film, but it took me a lot of humming and hawing to articulate why.

Story wise, there is no way to compare them. They convey different stories in different time periods in different ways. For me, as someone who spends a lot of time watching movies and seeing things that may or may not be there, there’s no denying that Bride has a hefty chunk of James Whale’s heart in it. Invisible does not.

Stills-bride-of-frankenstein-19762093-1466-1127

I don’t think anyone would argue against Whale being one of the gods of cinema Gothic (and if they do, stop talking to them IMMEDIATELY and walk away. You don’t need them in your life). When he made Bride, he already had Frankenstein and The Old Dark House under his belt. He was comfortable with Gothic.

For my taste, perhaps a little too comfortable. There’s a static feeling about Bride. A lot of “just look at how pretty this is while we gloss over some plot stuff.”   There’s no denying it is a gorgeous movie, deliberately Gothic, but that gives the movie an almost leaden feel.   It feels like not much happens in Bride because we are chained to pretty locations.

invisible-man-1933-unwraps-himself-claude-rains-hg-wells

The Invisible Man goes the opposite direction. Invisible is a wonderfully dynamic and energetic movie. It feels like play. Whale didn’t have the Gothic template to fit things into, which means he had to formulate how this movie would be made from the ground up and he was given the freedom (by necessity) to try all kinds of different stuff.

If nothing else, the cinematography makes Invisible a superior film.

d11599e1acd3b0879d229ffae1813813--the-invisible-man-september

Look at this shot. Look at this shot. We have one shot, a woman’s face framed by some flowers as she frets about the man she loves. That shot alone tells us in a subtle, delicate way everything we need to know about Flora. It’s all right there. If you had never seen this movie and only saw the picture, you wouldn’t even need to hear what she says. You just know what she’s saying and thinking.

Likewise, the camera makes subtle shifts when focused on Griffin. Towards the end of the movie when Griffin is going nutso, the camera will shoot him like normal, but as soon as he starts in on one of his world domination monologues, the camera angle goes as wonky as Griffin’s worldview.

96f47fdde2b305e939bf6412d26d1688--claude-rains-classic-monsters

The kicker for me was the scene where a radio broadcast at a party warns everyone that an invisible man is on the loose. The camera starts parting the crowd as it goes toward, then into, the radio. We feel like we’re traveling over the airwaves to all the houses full of terrified people trying to register that they should be scared of nothing.

I also think the performances in Invisible all around are better. The core performances in Bride are top notch, no doubt. But in Invisible, every single actor from star to bit player had to be on their game. A lot of actors spend a great deal of time interacting with nothing. When that cop gets kicked in the butt by the invisible man, he’s gotta sell it without making it look stupid. And he does. They all do. There’s not a hitch in the scenes where the actors have nothing to work with, which, in and of itself, is a miracle.

I also felt like, while Bride is a lovely time capsule we can sit and watch wistfully, Invisible is still relevant today. Both movies are about science gone wrong, but Invisible is much more immediate. It is also an early instance of a man who works in a science field that is specifically for benefiting people (whereas Frankenstein is much more about “look what I can do!”) going off on his own and creating something that will harm everyone.   In many ways, this movie presages what would happen in the atom age and, by extension, the sci-fi/horror hybrids of the 50’s (sorry Creature From The Black Lagoon, you weren’t first after all), in addition to the Cold War paranoia of what may or may not be out there to get you.

That last bit is a matter of personal taste for me. Grand philosophical dilemmas about the nature of human existence are fine, but I prefer to have my immediate worldview and surroundings challenged. Not a lot of people like that though, I know.

Now, for the record, the best horror film Universal made was 1925’s Phantom of the Opera (I will defend Phantom unto death! Come at me, brah!) and I was gonna shoehorn that movie in here eventually anyway, so just go with it. However, The Invisible Man and Bride of Frankenstein are both contenders for number two. What makes The Invisible Man the winner – and I would assert James Whale’s masterpiece – is a subtle but important difference.

dc269771b29aab4cb311e7606680a26b

In Bride of Frankenstein, an ethereal Elsa Lanchester sit us down and tells us to watch her fairy tale unfold before our eyes.

imagegen

In The Invisible Man, Claude Rains grabs you by the arm, drags you outside and laughs manically as he takes you on a journey to discover all the dangers you didn’t know existed right outside your door.

And when he’s laughing like that and promising such an adventure, I’d follow Claude Rains anywhere.

GRATUITOUS PHANTOM OF THE OPERA PICTURE!

maxresdefault

The Horror Heretic: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

 

chainsaw-main

(The Horror Heretic is a blog series where I voice opinions about the horror genre that are unpopular.   Because I’m super picky. And I don’t like anything.)

1974 saw one of the biggest game changers in horror cinema: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Tobe Hooper and crew reached new heights of fucked up-ness and showed that boundaries and decency are not something anyone needs to bother with.

I avoided seeing this movie for a lot of reasons. The whole “based on a true story” thing got me for a while. I don’t like stuff that actually happened. I’m scared enough of people as it is. When I found out that was just a marketing ploy, I still didn’t want to see it because it was a slasher movie and I hate slasher movies.

My dad, who doesn’t even like horror movies, scoffs and says that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre isn’t a horror movie. It’s supposed to be scary and stuff and a guy who should be freaked out by it says its garbage? That can’t be good.

But it’s also one of the tent poles of American horror and with Tobe Hooper passing this year, every theater was showing it. Trying to be a well-rounded horror fan and having plentiful opportunity, I decided to go for it.

Wow was that an eye opener.   There is only one other movie I have ever loathed with such an all-consuming vengeance as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the K-Horror film Acacia, for the record).

Like, this film and World War I are proof that humanity should be wiped off the face of the planet.   We’ve had a “good” run. We’re done now.

This movie is nothing but cheap shock value. Anything that could be considered plot is just a sequence of non-sensical weird stuff that is meant to jolt the audience.

Most of the performances aren’t that great, but it doesn’t take much in the way of acting chops to run and scream when someone is chasing you with a weapon. The only exception is Gunnar Hansen, who, from what I read, put way more thought and effort into his character than it deserved. He wanted to make his character realistic and inoffensive in the midst of an orgy of cartoonish offensiveness. The effort, though valiant, was wasted.

Also, there’s the solid streak of sexism. We get to see the women get brutalized. The guys die pretty quick and with minimal fuss.

One aspect of the movie that was interesting and that the makers get credit for, is the fact that there is very little blood shown on screen. We don’t see much of the actual violence. And yet, many people, myself included, would count this as one of the most disgusting movies ever made. Gore wise, there is no grounds for this opinion. The makers of the film successfully manipulated us into filling in the blanks with our own imagination, and they calculated the mood so carefully that we “know” the horrible, bloody things going on. I’m guessing they did it for budgetary reasons, as we often see the end result of the violence, leaving no question that the victims are dead.

I read a review of this movie that said it reflected the dark, scary times it was made in and how people who search only find cruelty, emptiness and irrationality. That is a valid point. But lets hone in on one word here: Cruelty. This movies taps into the part of us that likes to watch other people scream and run and die and be humiliated.

I firmly believe that, whatever their stated intentions, the makers of his movie were just trying to cut some people up. In doing so, they gave us permission to watch it, take part in it and worse still, enjoy it. People vilify this movie and it doesn’t pretend to be anything but what it is, but people keep coming back, 40 years later, to watch the pretty blonde girl get tortured. By pushing the boundaries of horror, the makers of this film told us that it was okay to revel in other people’s pain.   And America lapped it up like a thirsty dog. I’ve never had a very high opinion of people so I knew this was always in us, but I also believe in trying to deny it since we want life to be as not shitty as possible.

I was waiting for this movie to start when a friend texted me that a local theater was going to be showing Mario Bava’s Kill, Baby… Kill! My heart fluttered with joy and I giggled a little. Then the theater lights went down.

By the time TCM was over I realized what had happened. That text had brought one of my great loves to the forefront of my mind so that I could really soak TCM in and realize why I needed to finally see this movie.

I hated it, but I’m glad I watched it. Because it showed me that modern horror comes from a place of emptiness and hatred and venom.

And I never want to be that person.

I wasn’t alive at the time TCM was made so I can’t rightly compare that time period to now, but things are dark and scary now. It’s very easy to give in and let the venom and emptiness consume you.   It’s easy to give up.

The lights went down in that theater and I like to think Mario was standing behind me, showing me what I was made of: I am made of blood and black lace (I am aware that that movie is basically a Giallo, but the title is suuuuper Goth), and I will be until I dig myself out of my own grave. I am a Goth. I come from a place of sadness and poetry and passion and I fight against the emptiness and hatred with my dark dreams and my ghosts because I can’t give in and let the world be like TCM. Even though I see it on the news every night, even though I feel like I’ve lost at the end of every day, someone has to fight. If that means I’m writing fiction about haunted crazy people in forlorn castles for myself, so be it. I can live with that. But I won’t give up.

You know, to their credit, the makers never have Sally get sexually assaulted, so, there’s that at least…

The Horror Franchise We Deserve: Why the Resident Evil Movies Are Scarier Than You Think

Hell On Wheels

 

I’ve never made any bones about the fact that I have terrible taste in movies. But I also think there are movies out there that are better than people give them credit for. We’re going to talk about some of those here.

The Resident Evil films are popcorn horror. They’re not meant to make you think, they’re not meant to be deep explorations of the existential dilemma. They’re made so we can see Milla Jovovich in cool outfits shooting things full of holes.   I’m okay with that.

The thing is, horror movies reflect their day and age in ways both intentional and unintentional and looking at the details can reveal a lot about the struggles and values of the time. The Resident Evil movies are deceptively meaningful when you really look at them. Their worst plot factors are actually a powerful mirror for the society we live in today.

Let’s get a couple things out of the way first. This will not be a review of the series. They have zombies in them, I love them, and Retribution has zombies on motorcycles with rocket launchers and chainsaws, which makes it the greatest thing in the history of ever. ‘Nuff said. And I will not be addressing the video games or the animated films since I haven’t played/seen all of them so I can’t comment on them. And there will be spoilers here. If you haven’t seen all these movies, skip this essay.

 

Resident Evil 6 4

 

There are several threads you can follow through these films that lead you to places that will make you cringe. But let’s get the elephant in the room out of the way first: The Umbrella Corporation.

I hear people sneer about Umbrella. It’s dumb because it’s not actually a villain and why would they even keep making zombies when there’s no one left? These are all valid points. If you really think about it, the Umbrella Corporation is a terrible villain. No face, no motivation, just a machine that keeps destroying for no reason.

Here’s the sucky part:   The Umbrella Corporation is 100% realistic and just because it doesn’t exist in name doesn’t mean the stuff it did in the movies isn’t happening around us every day.

Umbrella has no motivation; they just keep making monsters for the sake of making monsters. Maybe one or two employees want to make money.   Maybe one or two of them want to use zombies to cleanse the world so their elite society can take over. It doesn’t matter why. They keep going. Anyone who has ever worked for a corporation knows. There are people in an office somewhere who know nothing about the actual workings of the companies they own, telling you how to do things.   You never see a face, sometimes you get a pre-recorded message. All they do is make a series of arbitrary decisions that benefit them in ways you can’t fathom while screwing you. If you’re lucky (and none of us have been so far) it’ll involve zombies. If not, it will involve getting laid off because it’s easier to fire you then take a lower bonus. Their goals are the only thing that matter. What is Umbrella gonna do with more zombies? The same thing the Koch Brothers will do with another million dollars. Nothing of importance, but they’ve had it ingrained in their heads that they need it, they deserve it and they have to have it at any cost.

This also manifests as a lack of concern for the people who work for them. Employees are resources to be expended as needed. This is clear from the second sequence of the first movie when we see the AI in The Hive proceed to kill everyone. What was thought to be a computer malfunction becomes much more sinister when we realize that the Red Queen is just carrying out pre-programmed instructions. Because the humans who created the Red Queen and the T-Virus saw this coming and created a plan for wiping out and covering up their mistakes. In Apocalypse, it happens again after the quarantine is a miserable failure. Raccoon City will be “sanitized”, a fancy word for nuking it off the map. They even have a neat little story about a nuclear reactor meltdown prepared and are so well connected that when a tape pops up at the end of the incident showing what really went down, Umbrella manages to discredit it completely.

This becomes laughable when we meet Albert Wesker in the last three movies. There must be, what, a couple hundred people left in the world, and he is still killing his employees left and right. At the end of Afterlife we find out he has been eating them to feed his own power. That is hitting the audience over the head with the point, but the point is still valid. People are grist for the mill for these corporations. Nothing more.

We get hit over the head again in Retribution when it is claimed (the continuity of the series is beyond screwed by this point) that the apocalypse began when Umbrella started selling the T-Virus to anyone with money to spend, not caring that they would use it and destroy the earth.

 

2008_10_01_viaduct-night

 

Another theme that pops up in the latter part of the series is classism. It begins to rear its head in Apocalypse. The Hive is opened after the incidents of the first movie.   Of course we, the audience, know that bad stuff is going to happen because of that. Umbrella knows it too as we see when we learn there’s a protocol for protecting the people who matter to them. As soon as the T-Virus breeches the surface, a series of black SUVs prowl the streets of Raccoon City, collecting scientists and their families and removing them to safety. This is done quietly with no fuss, leaving the scientist’s neighbors to wonder what that was all about. When they find out what is happening, there is already a wall around the city.   Everyone is shoe horned out over a single bridge until infection pops up near the exit and it’s shut down for good.   People don’t matter to Umbrella.   They can be left to fester in the petri dish the city becomes.

We see it again in Extinction when Isaacs talks about domesticating the zombies to use as a workforce. We see traces of it in Afterlife as well, in the character of Bennett, the movie producer who never stops acting like a movie producer. But, really, there’s always one of those in every group in a zombie movie.

Retribution has an interesting take on it. In trying to get clever with the concepts of the series (with largely disagreeable results), we come to find out that everyone is a clone. So we have a group of scientists who have no problem mass-producing people specifically to test situations where they will be killed.   Because the worker bees don’t matter.   This is also a nice twist on the old Hollywood Voodoo zombie, where a person of color is stolen, has their memories and lives wiped out in order to be a slave. How could you do that if you didn’t think you were better than other people?

Unfortunately, we get hit over the head with classism in The Final Chapter, where a retcon reveals that the entire premise of the series was a group of business people freezing themselves and killing everyone else so they can start the world over again.   It’s not surprising that this theme should pop up later in the series as the gap between the haves and have-nots grows in real life.

 

residentevil030

 

Probably the biggest theme of this series is the one it shares with most sci-fi movies: The intersection of science and humanity.   This is the area where the series pays homage to sci-fi/horror hybrids of the 50’s. This is an issue that has plagued humanity since science started moving forward in leaps and bounds and will continue to do so.

But the way Resident Evil reflects how humanity deals with science is very modern. In your older movies, you had a scientist who created a thing. Sometimes he got scared of his thing and it gets lose. Sometimes he set the thing loose because he thought it was a good thing that will help people. Then he has to help stop the thing and we all learn a lesson.

In the Resident Evil series, a scientist had a problem and created a thing to fix it.   The company he worked for said, “hey, that’s a nice thing! But you created it on our dime and we’re gonna take it now!” Then proceeds to actively make the thing into a problem.   The scientist attempts to stop them but they kill him and make the thing into a weapon that ruins everything.

There’s a level of Lovecraft style fear of academic advancement here. Humans aren’t supposed to know things. See what happens when people know things? Zombies and desolation, that’s what happens! So we should stop knowing things and everything will be fine!

As people who are watching climate change destroy lives we may get annoyed and shake our heads at such thinking. Ignoring the truth just makes things that much worse.

But the other side of that is humans did destroy the environment, just like the humans who ran Umbrella took a medicine and twisted it into the destruction of mankind.   Science is important and we need to keep pushing forward to make the world a better place. But we also need to be mindful that there will always be greedy eyes out there that will steal our ideas and weaponize them, just like Umbrella did.

 

resident-evil

 

There are several smaller themes that are dealt with in just one movie. Extinction deals with environmental issues. The Final Chapter has notes of the mindless religious fervor that we’re dealing with in America now. Apocalypse is the height of bureaucratic horror, which the movie invented if that wasn’t a thing before. Afterlife and Retribution have a lot to say about free will. That pops up in Apocalypse too, now I think about it.

I would be remiss not to comment on the feminism these movies run with. The bad ass, super powered characters that get shit done in these movies are mostly female, while the men sit around in boardrooms planning and bossing each other around.

Horror films done well are a way for people to address difficult situations in life and in society.   That doesn’t always go well.   There are creators who claim to be making a film about brutality of various sorts as an excuse to show that brutality. But sometimes a movie will deal with things in such a cartoonish way, we can’t see how true – and how scary – the message is. That is the case with the Resident Evil movies. So while we giggle about zombies with bazookas (because I giggled because they made me very happy), don’t lose sight of the fact that we may not be too far off from it in the real world. And before you roll your eyes at something you think is silly in a horror film, take a second to think about if it is genuinely silly, or if it is so common in your life you simply don’t recognize how scary it is anymore.

A Warning of Monsters: A Discussion of The Mummy

676

 

“This means something bigger than you can imagine. My life’s work and you were going to steal it. How much is that worth on the black market?”

 

When I heard this line, I heard the cry of a thousand monster kids when news of the Dark Universe started appearing.

 

I’ll add my standard disclaimer now: I didn’t come to old school horror through Universal like most people did. Hammer was my entry point. While I’ve seen the Universal films and appreciate that horror as a genre would not be what it is without them, I don’t have the emotional investment in them a lot of people do. That also means I will be much more forgiving of this movie than most (I do understand how Universal people feel though. If you want to hear some wailing and gnashing of teeth, ask me about current Batman comics).

 

Let Me Get This Out Of My System First

 

Now, I’ve been obsessed with Egypt ever since I was 10. I don’t know as much as I should as I had periods where I was lax in keeping up with the archaeology, but I know a fair bit. And I know enough to have to get this out of my system…

 

THATSNOTHOWEGYPTIANMAGICWORKSITSNOTITSNOTITSNOTANDIFYOUACTUALLYDIDYOURRESEARCHYOUDSEEHOWAWESOMEEGYPTIANMAGICISANDYOUWOULDNTHAVETOMAKESTUFFUPTHATMAKESNOSENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Also, if you’re going to make politics part of your plot, understand how the politics of your country worked. Egypt had a harem system, which meant the chances of Pharaoh not having a son were slim and even if the situation in the movie arose it would have been super easy for Ahmanet to Hatshepsut that shit: Rule for the kid as regent and just claim the title of Pharaoh before the kid was grown.   End of story.

 

And you want to erase someone from history? You don’t give them a tomb. The surest way to curse and insult someone was to have no funeral, no rites, and nothing to mark the grave.

 

And mummifying someone alive is not a thing. It’s kind of impossible.

 

Okay. *straightens tie and smoothes back hair* Moving on….

 

The Head That Wears The Crown

 

The Mummy 2017 1

 

Whatever else we want to say about this film, it is called The Mummy so the mummy is the really important thing here.

 

Sofia Boutella NAILED… THAT… SHIT! She was, hands down, the best thing about the movie. She was believably hurt and vulnerable when she needed to be, a stone cold bad ass the rest of the time and beautifully manipulative and calculating throughout.

 

Now, I’m a fan of the Gothic, so tragic romance floats my boat, but a change every once in awhile is nice. That’s where one of the key, and most refreshing, changes comes to this movie.

 

Ahmanet was not some woman who lost her lover due to the misfortunes of chance and shares the curse that stalks him through time. Ahmanet was the daughter of a god and the god who was supposed to wear the crown next.   Every decision she made was toward the ultimate goal of securing what she saw as hers by right.

 

The makers of this film never lost sight of that and a bunch of details (though I’m guessing a great deal of them were unintentional) show that. Ahmanet carried herself ramrod straight with her chin up and out. She stood slightly awkwardly but always in a way that took up slightly more space than anyone else which is consistence with the way Egyptian monarchs were depicted in art. She projected regal and when people – alive or dead – did as she commanded, even when she didn’t say anything, it made perfect sense.   God-queens must be obeyed.

 

One of my favorite scenes is when Ahmanet walks into the tomb of the Templars for the first time and all the undead warriors take a knee. The filmmakers probably didn’t realize it, but that’s a big deal.   Taking a knee (a.k.a. genuflecting) for Catholics is reserved for God and for the Host. You bow or kneel on both knees for everything else. So you have Christian knights making a holy gesture of servitude before an undead, pagan god-queen.

 

This is a woman who was born to rule and will do whatever she has to to secure that crown. That is what makes this my favorite iteration of The Mummy and if it weren’t for Ingrid Pitt, Ahmanet would totally be my undead queen.

 

I also think there was a major disservice done in the marketing for this movie (which actually probably bled into the movie now I think of it) because it was titled The Mummy, which meant we should have been focusing on our monster. Not Tom Cruise. Ahmanet feels like an afterthought. In that way, she does become like a typical female in a horror movie. What she does doesn’t matter, even though it should since she’s the baddie. What happens to her is where our focus is.

 

Ugh. That guy?

 

Film Title: The Mummy

 

While I rather liked this movie, it did basically suck. One of the reasons was that you have an amazing baddie but the hero is a total schmuck named Nick Morton.

 

Now, I didn’t like Guardians of the Galaxy so it grates on my last nerve that the male lead in every movie now is Star Lord.

 

Hate to break it to you:   A dick-bag with a heart of gold is still a dick-bag. And the love of a good woman has never, ever fixed a dick-bag. All it’s done is exactly what it did in this movie: Get those around him hurt and killed. Worse still, the “redemption” Nick gets in the end is in no way earned. It’s given to him because he’s Tom Cruise, er, I mean, the “hero.”

 

I do feel like there’s squandered opportunities in the character. First off, earning his redemption, but I also especially liked the idea of him going into these war zones and exploiting the fighting for his own gain. That is an avenue that is fertile ground for a new generation of ancient folk horror.

 

And the humor, which was mostly at Nick’s expense, was solid. That was a welcome borrow from Stephen Sommer’s Mummy.

 

Wait, Who’s Pulling The Strings Here?

 

Film Title: The Mummy

 

If this movie had been made in the 30’s, Jenny Halsey would have been the victim. She’s pretty, she’s useless and she contributes nothing to the story except the hero’s tears at the end.

 

But another fun aspect of this film is that it was made now and we have a gender swap on our hands.   Our female lead is the power grasping monster and the puppet on her strings is male. Nick has absolutely no agency until the very end. He is completely at the mercy of Ahmanet.

 

This really hit me during the scene in the cathedral when Ahmanet was going to sacrifice Nick.   She starts pawing at him in a way that is pretty clearly supposed to be sexual but Nick is NOT enjoying it (and women everyone cry “see how that feels!?”).

 

But the gender swap is at its best, I think, during the fight scenes. It makes me so happy to see a female villain pick someone up by the throat and chuck them across the room with one hand. Talk about empowering! And I was giggling madly when the final fight scene descended into Ahmanet repeatedly bitch slapping Nick (because those were bitch slaps).

 

It’s also nice to see Ahmanet take a hit like a champ. Pick axe through the thigh? Whatever.   *bitch slap*

 

All that promise did fall apart at the very end though. The nonsensical love triangle where there’s no evidence that anyone actually loved each other won out. Ahmanet got inexplicably jealous and the man with no willpower until that moment managed to contain the god of evil, so the woman gets shirked and the man becomes all powerful because… he’s Tom Cruise? Because they feel like they have to put Tom in another movie?   Because of some other stupid reason that’s gonna get me angry if I think about it anymore?

 

The Important Things In Life

 

Zombie Kisses

 

The dead people.   Let’s talk about the dead people in this movie because dead people are fun to talk about and they always make me happy.

 

Now, the scene where Ahmanet wakes up for the first time and sucks the life from the two cops had me wanting to run up and down the aisles of the theater skweeing and waving my arms around. It was soooooooo purdy!

 

I’m also madly in love with their version of Set. We only saw a little bit of him, but it was super sexy and I hope he pops up again.

 

There was a pretty clear attempt to make the dead people in this movie scary. When they first died, they didn’t move easily and it was creepy as all get out. They were gross too and I really appreciated that. I was madly in love with the scene where the Templars were swimming after Nick. It was a silly scene, but it looked so nice.

 

Here’s The Part Where I Earn The Side Eye

 

Film Title: The Mummy

 

I’m gonna bring the skeleton out of the closet here: I’m gonna set this movie side by side with Dracula Untold for a second.

 

Dracula Untold was being made when the Dark Universe was being conceived, so all the tie in stuff was tacked on at the end. But the big reason you can tell it wasn’t supposed to be part of the Dark Universe is because Dracula Untold doesn’t have much of an old school, 30’s feel to it. It actually leans pretty hard into Lord of the Rings style fantasy.

 

On the other hand, The Mummy smacks of the 30’s and, as much as I hate to say it, is probably the movie Universal would have made in ’32 if they’d had the means. Universal made those movies to put butts in seats and cash in hand. The fact that they ended up being such elegant masterpieces was mostly an accident because the stories had to be well written to balance out the fact that they had no means to do anything truly spectacular. They probably would have sacrificed story to go for the cheap scare back then.

 

The thing I associate most with horror films of that period (and later, to be honest, it’s not like Hammer never did it) is story sacrificed for the sake of style and plot convenience. That is all over this new film.

 

For example, the deal Ahmanet makes is a deal with the Devil. Tit for tat that goes awry and bites her in the ass. But Egyptians weren’t dualistic in the same way we are.   Set was a bad dude, but the bad things he did were necessary for balance in the universe and he wasn’t ultimate evil.   Not to mention that one did not bargain with Egyptian gods.

 

Another example is the sarcophagus on a lever system. In spite of taking all that effort to seal her away forever, the priests put in a lever system to pull the sarcophagus out. How else were our heroes going to get her out? Looked cool too.

 

How does Nick come back from the dead when he’s had no special experience outside of some visions?   Dunno. But it’s cool if he dies so we’ll do that and bring him back.

 

My point is that this movie followed the pattern of a 30’s Universal film and I think we can expect more of that type of barely sensical-ness from future films, especially if you want to force monsters together.

 

“You Have To Be Weary Of A Man Like Me.”

 

Jekyll

 

There is another aspect here that is quite modern. Prodigium is basically a government conspiracy to hunt evil. It subverts other branches of government in pursuing its goal, which fits perfectly with the personality of the man who created it.

 

This is one aspect of the story that really bugged me: Prodigium is headed by Henry Jekyll.

 

I like the idea of Prodigium and I like the fanaticism that rears its head in the way Jekyll deals with evil. There is no negotiation, no alternatives, only destruction.

 

My problem is a) I don’t like Jekyll and Hyde (personal taste, but it does factor into my opinion), b) what we seem to be dealing with in the Dark Universe is absolute good and evil. Black and white. To me, Jekyll and Hyde was the gray area between because the story itself was about the evil that men are capable of. Even good men. And c) Russell Crowe was not pulling off Jekyll. He was a fine as Hyde, though the transformation was lackluster. I heard that Eddie Redmayne was considered to play Jekyll and Hyde, and I think he would have been magnificent.

 

I Spy With My Little Eye…

 

This is a miscellaneous list of references I thought I spotted in the movie. Some of them are probably totally in my head but I stand by them.

 

– In the lab at Prodigium we see the Gill Man’s hand and a vampire skull. In Jekyll’s office there’s also a skull that has had the top sawed off and reattached, ala Frankenstein. I also kept seeing ape skulls, so I’m not sure what that could mean.

 

– The Egyptian dream sequences and the flashbacks where Ahmanet performed the rituals to Set borrowed heavily from Coppola’s Dracula stylistically.

 

– Ahmanet awakening in the wet, gross boggy area – The Mummy’s Curse with Ananka being found in the muck of a Louisiana swamp. During this scene the policemen also follow a strip of bandage that reminded me of the scene in the original Mummy when Imhotep walks away, leaving the laughing clerk insane.

 

-Rats on the streets in London – Dracula. I can’t see rats in a horror movie and not think Dracula.

 

– All the stuff from Stephen Sommers’s Mummy: Bugs.   All them Bugs; Sandstorms and faces in sandstorms; sucking the life breath from people to heal; and, of course, the Book of Amen Ra.

 

– The Templars: TOMBS OF THE BLIND DEAD! That makes Ahmanet my hero since she commands the Eastern Knights.

 

– During the fight in the cathedral, one of the zombies ends up tacked to the wall horizontally and that reminded me of the golden unicorn/catapult kill in The Abominable Dr. Phibes.

 

“This, My Little Prince, Is The Ultimate Game.”

 

Dark Universe

 

(That line is from Dracula Untold, for the record.)

 

At this point, the Dark Universe is a chess game we’ve only seen the opening moves of.

 

Dracula Untold has already been dismissed from Dark Universe continuity, but I think reintegrating it would be extremely easy and fun.

 

I’m a firm believer that Charles Dance should stay involved in the Dark Universe (he’s the closest thing to Sir Christopher Lee we have left!) and I think his master vampire would butt heads nicely with Jekyll and Prodigium. They probably would not be the group the vampire mentioned wanting revenge on, but they would most likely end up getting in the way. This would make Dracula choose sides, or not choose sides, so he can be a hero without being a hero and a villain without being a villain, ala Dark Shadows’s Barnabas Collins.

 

By adding Jekyll and what are basically zombies, they have made steps toward making the Dark Universe a much bigger, more all encompassing thing then it was in the 40’s, which is a step in the right direction if we’re going long game.

 

Last I heard Bride Of Frankenstein is up next, and I almost wonder if we won’t have Nick approaching Dr. Frankenstein, asking him to remove Set somehow. Perhaps the monster can act as a vessel for the god.

 

But, for me, the really fun implications are for Ahmanet. We see her desiccated corpse being put back into its sarcophagus and the sarcophagus being filled with mercury. Setting aside the fact that we know she’s not gone because franchise, within the story this denotes that they still consider her a threat. She was a queen on the verge of becoming a god.   She killed her own family to seize power. When she wakes up, who’s to say she won’t hunt Nick down and murder him to seize the throne of Hell itself?   Who knows what allies and enemies she’ll make along the way?

 

We’ve just been given our Queen, and in chess the Queen is the most versatile piece.

 

Did I like The Mummy? Yeah, I did.

 

The Queen is dead.   Long live the Queen.

Nowhere To Turn: Dracula’s Daughter and the Victimization of Women

draculasdaughter

 

Dracula’s Daughter was one of those movies I’d always heard everyone talk about but had never gotten around to watching until recently. It does have its strong points, but I can’t say I liked it all that well.

The thing is, as I stewed over this movie and picked it apart in my head, I realized something unintentionally sinister and a little disturbing about this film: Dracula’s Daughter is the perfect representation of the victimization of women.

Countess Marya Zaleska is a vampire. But how she became a vampire is a little nebulous.   We are not led to believe that she was bitten. Her vampirism is due to the “influence of her father.” What this points to is long-term mental and emotional abuse. Zaleska’s father browbeat her into believing that she was a vampire and she had to drink blood to survive. Zaleska is not the typical vampire femme fatale we have come to expect.   Vampirism was not her choice and not something she had embraced. She wants very much to be free of it.

draculas-daughter-3

The funeral pyre sequence supports this. She is desperate to get hold of her father’s body. She’s the only one who can do what needs to be done and what needs to be done is an exorcism. Through the ritual burning and prayers Zaleska is making sure Dracula is dead.   Only when he is dead and can never, ever, come back can she sever the ties that bind them. She is exorcising the demon, her demon, in hopes of leaving that life behind.

But that’s not how family works. Daddy issues aren’t so easy to get rid of.

Here’s where things get really painful: She goes to Garth, a doctor (a psychiatrist, interestingly enough, not a doctor of the body, further suggesting that she was not bitten), for help. Garth insists she be upfront about what is troubling her. This makes sense. How can you treat a problem when you don’t know what it is?

draculasdaughter5

Zaleska is too ashamed to tell him her problems. Why should she be? Because she knows how that will go. She tells the doctor she’s a vampire (tells the police she’s been raped). He doesn’t believe she’s a vampire (she just slept with some guy and regrets it so she’s accusing him of things).   If she manages to convince Garth that she’s a vampire he will turn on her, assume she’s evil and should be destroyed (well, if you didn’t spend your nights running around like a whore this wouldn’t have happened to you so just accept the shame we’re going to heap on you).

When Zaleska refuses to tell Garth the problem he assumes that problem isn’t real (if you were raped, why didn’t you report it when it happened?).   She just needs to exert some willpower and get over it.

But Zaleska does have a problem. She was abused. And she wants help so desperately she agrees to reveal the abuse.

And when she does, everyone – including the person she turned to for help – turns on her and destroys her. Just like she knew was going to happen.

She doesn’t go down without a fight, but it’s worth noting that she is not doing what her father did and destroying lives. She is using her powers to kidnap a man, drag him off and force him to help her. All she wants is to heal and she’ll force Garth to make the pain go away if she has to.

This movie gives a pretty bleak picture of what it’s like to be a victim of rape and abuse and that was not what I was expecting when I sat down to watch it. But Zaleska’s story is the story of millions of women throughout the world.   Whether the movie supports or opposes this treatment of victims is hard to say, but it certainly exposes it to anyone willing to see it. Here’s hoping that we can look at the story of a fictional vampire and learn something from it.

Of Glass Slippers And Bloody Knives: Frankenstein Created Woman And Cinderella

frankenstein-created-woman-6(picture from The Peter Cushing Appreciation Page)

Frankenstein Created Woman is an odd entry in the Hammer’s Frankenstein series.   Most of the Frankenstein films follow the reliable pattern of Peter Cushing putting one person’s brain into another’s body. Wackiness and bloodshed ensue. But Created Woman sees the vehemently pragmatic Baron suddenly concerned with the human soul.

The story goes like this: The Baron, assisted by drunkard Dr. Hertz and outcast Hans, performs an experiment that proves that the human soul remains in the body for a bit after clinical death. To celebrate the success he asks Hans to run into town and get some champagne. At the cafe, Hans flirts with shy, deformed Christina, the innkeeper’s daughter. Secretly they’re lovers, but Christina’s father doesn’t approve of Hans. He’s the son of a murderer and the entire town is convinced he’ll come to no good. Hans has a dust up with Christina’s father before the local trio of rich douchebags shows up and starts hassling everyone, saving the most venom for Christina. Hans refuses to just let them, and in the ensuing fight, he pounds on all three of the douchbags. Later that night, as a bratty form of revenge the douchebags sneak back to the cafe after it has closed. Christina’s father catches them and ends up dead in the altercation that follows.   Hans is blamed and put on trial, but it’s a forgone conclusion. No one but The Baron and Hertz believe Hans didn’t do it. Hans is quickly convicted and executed. Christina witnesses the execution and commits suicide. The Baron now has two bodies and the ability to trap souls. So, the soul of Hans goes into the body of Christina, whom The Baron has performed plastic surgery on. Christina wakes up totally hot and with no memory of who she is. This means the compulsion to hunt down and kill the three douchebags is foreign to her, but one she still follows. Christina murders all three men before drowning herself and staying dead for good.

This one is a little weird for a Frankenstein film.   Trapping souls isn’t a science, whereas in the other films, The Baron is a scientist to the core. It is also much more morally dense than the other films.   The rest of the series is concerned with the badness of raising the dead, whereas this one leans more toward saving those who died undeservedly and allowing them to live.

But if you look at the film in the context of a fairy tale and everything suddenly makes a whole lot more sense. That’s because Frankenstein Created Woman is a slasher version of Cinderella.

Stay with me while I reframe the story a little bit.

Cinderella is part of what is apparently known as “the persecuted heroine” group of fairy tale figures. In this film, we have not one Cinderella, but two. Christina is the most obvious one. She has been deformed from birth, and has been looked on with pity and disgust and led to believe that she needs to be fixed for anyone to love her. Hans is our unexpected Cinderella. Physically, Christina is damaged goods.   Emotionally, Hans is damaged goods.   He has spent his whole life being looked on with pity and disgust and led to believe that he needs to be fixed because of what his father did.

Rather than wicked stepsisters we have our tree rich douchebags. The scene where we first meet them is very important here because we see them bully Christina by making her serve them wine, forcing her to spill it and threatening her with violence when she does. We then see them using the law to bully Hans after he kicks the crap out of them.

Here, just as in the fairy tale, Cinderella has to reach her lowest point before she can rise. In this case, they both die. But this is a horror film and we realize the pair has a very unexpected fairy godmother:   Baron Victor Frankenstein.

The Baron is kind enough to wave his magic science wand (this is a 60’s horror movie) and make Christina a total hottie after putting Hans’s soul in her body. It’s at this point that Cinderella can now have her moment of triumph and rise above her enemies. Our douchebags got Hans killed and routinely harassed Christina. In Frankenstein Created Woman, Christina and Hans triumph over the people who oppressed them in a way suitable to a horror movie:   They seduce then kill them.   Revenge is had by not only making the rich douchebags drool over the thing that had repulsed them before, but killing them afterward.

It’s also worth remembering that, even though the blonde lady with a blue dress surrounded by singing mice from Disney was probably the first thing that popped into your head when I mentioned Cinderella, most versions of the story from all over the world are much nastier. The German and Persian versions had the persecutors killed at the end. The German and several Asian versions also had their beauty being guided by the spirit of a dead person.

There are quite a few ways Frankenstein Created Woman is unusual. Not the least of which is that Terence Fisher rather directly created the fairy tale he always viewed his movies to be. There may be no singing mice (though Thorley Walters is basically Gus-Gus if you think about it), but it may not be too off the mark to say that this is the type of thing The Brothers Grimm had in mind. Or would have if they had been writing in the 60’s.