Yep, Salem's Lot sounds like a witches-and-burning kind of film but no, it’s about vampires. A whole lot of them, as one big bad vamp takes a small town to hell.
The uber vamp is ugly as … well it would be best not to say, just ugly. He says nothing through the entire film, he just looks ugly and scary and very mean. He has an appetite for anything and everything, kiddies, old folks, pretty young things and of course the tastiest of them all, uuuummm, yummie man of the cloth…
The pace is swift and makes this epic TV series originally shown in two parts fly by, yeah three-something hours. There are even a couple of genuine “jump from your seat” moments and seriously it is hard to scare such seasoned viewers as P & M.
Convention would have it that most vamps want to remain anonymous, killing in secret for as long as they can before an angry mob runs them out of town. However, this vamp seems to want to make a real statement. “Hey, check me out,” “Lord of Darkness” scary and all.
His first victim, a little boy, is not killed outright and vamp’s henchman, Mr Straker, doesn’t seem to care about cleaning up after his master. So the bodies start piling up as the vamps go looking for tucker. It would seem this convention would have gotten in the way of telling a good story so the film makers just allowed for a blood bath. (I am not talking about the 1975 book on which it is based). This is not the only anomaly in this film.
While Salem’s Lot is not of the romantic or sympathetic vampire film type, it does aim to have it’s cake and eat it too. The romantic interest established early between the hero, Dan and local girl Susan, it used to justify a mystifying finish. All the local town folk who are turned into vampires show the same symptoms; they become animalistic grunting and hissing instead of speaking, display a blue-greenish tinge to the skin and a great set of fangs, as well as cat-like glow in the dark eyes.
But the sweet girl linked romantically to the hero doesn’t turn green and nasty; in fact she remains beautiful appearing well dressed and groomed, to seduce the hero in climax of the film. She whispers promises of eternal love and youth. He leans in for a snog and she fangs, snarling with her eyes alight with a supernatural glow. The hero is ready for this moment and stakes her. (Just like the tortured love affair between Lucy Westenra and Arthur Holmwood in Dracula.)
Saturday, 9 January 2010
Tuesday, 22 December 2009
The Devil’s Mistress, 1966
Four Cowboys, a preacher and a beautiful girl—what could possibly go wrong? Try five murders and one rape.
The Creature Features Movie Guide (1981) slams The Devil’s Mistress as “hackneyed,” but we are inclined to disagree with John Stanley. So either the crappy 80s film we watched the night before has warped our little brains or simply alerted us what real shit looks like. Either way, we liked this twisted little cowboy tale.
Cue cowboys on a dusty desert trail and the smell of horse sweat. Two of our posse are repulsive right from the get go (Joe and Charlie), one is young and naive (Frank), and the forth—the enigmatic leader of the group (Will)—is tough and complex but seemingly a good guy deep down.
The cowboys are on the run. They come across an isolated cabin in the desert and are invited in for a meal by a preacher man (Jeroboam) and his mute wife (Athaliah/Leah).
Instantly, we know the wife is in danger from the two cowboys who have earlier made it clear they are violent and indiscriminate rapists. The enigmatic leader is suspicious of the preacher and his wife and orders his men to leave. While he and the younger one ride off, the remaining two insist on a staying for a bit of fun: they kill the fearless preacher man then rape and kidnap his wife. The cowboys then regroup.
While M wants this to be a rape-revenge film it is not so easy to classify. While the mute girl is an active party in the deaths of each of the cowboys, she is “the devil’s mistress.” It would appear, therefore, that she is acting on behalf of the devil or at the instigation of the devil. The killings are not clearly motivated by her desire for revenge, a fundamental requirement of a rape-revenge fantasy—although she does seem to enjoy her part. (Whether the preacher man is the Devil himself is also not clear. He says he left Salem with Leah "to escape religious persecution," but he reappears after he has been killed and tossed down a well.)
In fact, Leah’s rape seems to be a deliberate plan by the devil to place temptation before the two cowboys—who have been fantasising and joking about raping and killing a "squaw”—and therefore justifying his punishment of them. This is a perfectly orthodox representation of the Devil, theologically speaking, since it is his function to offer temptation to mortals to test their moral fortitude. If you fail, if the Devil succeeds in tempting you into sin, then God lets the Devil do as he pleases with you and your imortal soul. And the Devil, knowing that these two scumbags would not be able to resist an unarmed man and mute woman, despite the fact that he has just offered them hospitality by feeding them, sets the perfect trap for them. (The enigmatic leader senses the trap, and decamps for this reason.)
As for the revenge: Leah kills two of the cowboys in a particularly interesting way (the other two die by snake-bite and hanging). She seems to have the power to drain the life-energy out of her victims by kissing them anywhere on the body: lips, neck, wrists, any exposed skin. The first time we see Leah in action is when she kisses one of the men who had raped her. She seems to take great pleasure in this embrace, which is highly suspicious. When her victim is immediately affected by the embrace, then weakens and dies, we realise why she was so keen to kiss him.
Stanley describes Leah as a “female vampire” but she has no pointed teeth, she does not bite anyone, there is no blood of any description, and no fancy special effects to explain what she is doing. The draining of life-energy is very similar to the form of vampirism that appears in Lifeforce (1985), but the victims of the “space vampires” in this film (Colin Wilson’s novel—which the film is based on—is called The Space Vampires) draw sparks and ghostly spirits from the mouths of their victims, and the victims are left as withered and desicated as Egyptian mummies. Here, she kisses them, and they just weaken in her embrace.
For a simple film this works really well. The cast is tiny (only six people) and amateurs (five of them appear in no other film on imdb), and the cowboys are stereotypes, but they are wonderfully realised. And, given the way in which the four cowboys have been differentiated (morally), it remains unclear right up until the end what will be their individual fates. Also, although Joan Stapleton may be no Mathilda May (the female lead in Lifeforce) her Barbara Steele-looks are perfect for the film and the scenery is just beautiful.
The Devil’s Mistress breaks conventions of the vampire genre but sticks faithfully to Christian theology. And, although not strictly a rape-revenge film, it skates close to the real deal, offering enormous satisfaction for the female viewer despite Leah’s part as merely the agent of the devil rather than being the devil herself.
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
Grave of the Vampire, 1974
This low-budget film is actually pretty good and offers a number of interesting twists to the usual vampire story.
First, if biting in vampire films is a metaphor for sex, and the thrall is a way of subduing the female victims into enjoying it, then all biting in vampire films is actually a metaphor for rape (it is non-consensual "sex"). Most vampire films reinforce the bite=sex metaphor by making the vampires incapable of physical sex or of procreation through traditional methods (ie sperm and egg): they reproduce through biting.
This film is unusual, therefore, in that the vampire is a rapist—both when he was alive, and now that he is dead—and can reproduce sexually. Not surprisingly, therefore, he is impotent when it comes to producing more vamps through biting. It is suggested he is capable of producing more undead but, he refuses the one opportunity offered to him and all his victims of the bite die or are already dead.
Second. the story line is essentially a rape-revenge. The central character, a young man named James Eastman, is a half-human vampire. He is the offspring of a vampire who raped James’s mother and killed her fiancé. (This is only the third film of 170 we have viewed with a vampire child conceived sexually; vampire children are also fairly uncommon.)
It is not clear if James himself has taken to biting human victims but his mother fed him on her own blood as an infant. There is also a hint of bloodlust when James caresses the neck of his lover, but he shows no sign of giving to temptation. It is not until the end of the film, when he has fulfilled his Oedipal destiny by killing his vampire-father, that James's latent vampire fangs emerge and he screams wildly to his lover, Anne, to run away.
There is a really interesting moment in the film which combines these two main elements (the collapsed bite/rape metaphor and the rape-revenge film conventions). When the vamp goes to the library (yeah I know, but I am not kidding) he is told that the book that he wants cannot be borrowed so he tries to cast a thrall over the librarian. The librarian seems to be under his influence and unleashes a gorgeous mop of red hair which she brushes and fluffs.
The preening seems to have sexual overtones and of course the vamp and the viewer believe the power of the thrall has worked. But the librarian still refuses his request for the book and asks him to leave when he repeats his request. His reaction is rapist psychology 101: he becomes enraged, blames the librarian for leading him on, only to turn into a cold bitch and refuse him the book/a bite/sex. So he kills her on the spot. The whole scene is quite unsettling.
There a few other genuine shocks along the way. The cop who is tracking our rapist vamp—and who features for most of the first forty minutes of the film—confronts him by his graveside. Since he is the only person who knows what might be going on the viewer expects him to continue to play a prominent role, but in the confrontation the vamp crushes his head with the heavy stone lid to a coffin! Eew.
The acting for the most part is actually pretty good, the human-vamp character, James, is really well acted and developed. Understated, a little strange, though enigmatic and attractive like all good vamps should be. So despite the absence of castles, diaphanous gowns, angry mobs or hunch-back assistants we both liked this film.
First, if biting in vampire films is a metaphor for sex, and the thrall is a way of subduing the female victims into enjoying it, then all biting in vampire films is actually a metaphor for rape (it is non-consensual "sex"). Most vampire films reinforce the bite=sex metaphor by making the vampires incapable of physical sex or of procreation through traditional methods (ie sperm and egg): they reproduce through biting.
This film is unusual, therefore, in that the vampire is a rapist—both when he was alive, and now that he is dead—and can reproduce sexually. Not surprisingly, therefore, he is impotent when it comes to producing more vamps through biting. It is suggested he is capable of producing more undead but, he refuses the one opportunity offered to him and all his victims of the bite die or are already dead.
Second. the story line is essentially a rape-revenge. The central character, a young man named James Eastman, is a half-human vampire. He is the offspring of a vampire who raped James’s mother and killed her fiancé. (This is only the third film of 170 we have viewed with a vampire child conceived sexually; vampire children are also fairly uncommon.)
It is not clear if James himself has taken to biting human victims but his mother fed him on her own blood as an infant. There is also a hint of bloodlust when James caresses the neck of his lover, but he shows no sign of giving to temptation. It is not until the end of the film, when he has fulfilled his Oedipal destiny by killing his vampire-father, that James's latent vampire fangs emerge and he screams wildly to his lover, Anne, to run away.
There is a really interesting moment in the film which combines these two main elements (the collapsed bite/rape metaphor and the rape-revenge film conventions). When the vamp goes to the library (yeah I know, but I am not kidding) he is told that the book that he wants cannot be borrowed so he tries to cast a thrall over the librarian. The librarian seems to be under his influence and unleashes a gorgeous mop of red hair which she brushes and fluffs.
The preening seems to have sexual overtones and of course the vamp and the viewer believe the power of the thrall has worked. But the librarian still refuses his request for the book and asks him to leave when he repeats his request. His reaction is rapist psychology 101: he becomes enraged, blames the librarian for leading him on, only to turn into a cold bitch and refuse him the book/a bite/sex. So he kills her on the spot. The whole scene is quite unsettling.
There a few other genuine shocks along the way. The cop who is tracking our rapist vamp—and who features for most of the first forty minutes of the film—confronts him by his graveside. Since he is the only person who knows what might be going on the viewer expects him to continue to play a prominent role, but in the confrontation the vamp crushes his head with the heavy stone lid to a coffin! Eew.
The acting for the most part is actually pretty good, the human-vamp character, James, is really well acted and developed. Understated, a little strange, though enigmatic and attractive like all good vamps should be. So despite the absence of castles, diaphanous gowns, angry mobs or hunch-back assistants we both liked this film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
