When Dracula Got Hammered (Part I)

 

Note: The first week of September in the United States is recognized National Blood Donation Week. Please donate, if you can. (I promise it won't go to feed Dracula!)

 

 Quoted from Dracula FAQ by Bruce Scivally:

"After being lampooned by Abbott and Costello, it seemed the classic monsters were done for good. As the 1950's dawned, American horror movies were no longer being produced by major studios, but by smaller companies like American International Pictures and Lippert, companies that made cheap black-and-white "quickies"  for the entertainment of teenagers at drive-ins. But in England, one company decided to take a chance on reviving the old gothic monsters in lurid, living color."  

                                                                                                      -from Dracula FAQ by Bruce Scivally 

 

When the average person hears the name Dracula, it is almost always Bela Lugosi they think of, even though he only played Dracula twice; once in the original Universal movie Dracula, and then once again in Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein. (Those other vampires he played in movies you are thinking of right now were not Dracula, but some other vampire...) 

 

Lugosi in the original Dracula

Lugosi w/ Costello

 

 

More studious film aficionados may think of Max Schreck from the silent film Nosferatu (in which the vampire was actually named Count Orlok, but was still essentially Dracula), or Bill Skarsgård, who recently starred in a remake of Nosferatu. 2025 also saw yet another incarnation of the bloodsucker with Caleb Landry Jones, directed by Luc Besson.

Max Schreck as Orlok

Bill Skarsgård as Orlok

 

Caleb Landry Jones as Dracula

Even more obsessed fans of Dracula may recall some others from bygone days, such as Klaus Kinski, Jack Palance, Frank Langella and John Carradine in serious Dracula roles, and George Hamilton, Adam Sandler, Leslie Nielsen or even David Niven (yes THAT David Niven...) in comedic portrayals. One of the best portrayals would have to be Gary Oldman in the Francis Ford Coppola venture into the vampire legend. 

Gary Oldman as Dracula

 

But the most prolific actor in the role of the famous vampire would have to be Christopher Lee, who essayed the role in the Dracula movies that Hammer Films issued in the 60's and 70's. And without a doubt, in the opinion of your humble blogger, Lee was the scariest of the toothy menace to ever appear on screen. Lugosi was interesting, but really, he didn't really frighten me one bit. 

Christopher Lee as Dracula

 

Lee made 7 movies for Hammer Films starring as the title character, and his cohort, Peter Cushing also made films with him as Professor Van Helsing  (there were actually 9 Hammer Dracula films in total). Of course, both of them together only shared the spotlight 3 of them. Which was surprising to me because I thought they had been together in more. But then I realized that the source of that misconception was that they had indeed made many movies together, 24 to be exact, but they weren't all Dracula movies. They also were in The Curse of Frankenstein, The Mummy, Scream and Scream Again and House of the Long Shadows (both of those last two with Vincent Price) among others, although not all with Hammer Studios.

You could be forgiven if you thought that Hammer films only produced horror movies, since that is what the movie buff would call to mind if "Hammer Films" came up as a topic, but the fact is up until the early 50's most of the output of the studio was either comedy, science fiction or film noir. The first genuine horror Hammer film did not appear until 1955. If you'd like to check out my other reviews of Hammer films (up to this point), both of them on film noir movies you can see them here and here. Surprisingly (and unfortunately, in my opinion) this is my first foray into Hammer horror movies, however.

 

 

 

 

Dracula  [re-titled Horror of Dracula in the U.S.] (1958):

The first foray into the Hammer studios oeuvre of the Dracula saga was an attempt to translate the original Bram Stoker novel to film. As such, some of the story makes it's way into the film, although quite often the script takes some liberties. If you weren't blessed with the assignment to read Dracula in a high school English class like I was, you may not even notice some of the differences. But some of them stand out like a sore thumb.

The most striking piece of trivia about this version of Dracula is that, believe it or not, it was the first ever vampire movie to be filmed in color.  The bloody fangs of Dracula in all their red glory were on display for the first time. Hammer doesn't waste time in gently nudging you to this new color concept, either. In the first scene, directly after the opening credits, the camera focuses on a crypt with the name "Dracula" emblazoned on it, as red blood drips from somewhere off camera onto the coffin.

Bloody tomb

 

Jonathan Harker (John Van Eyssen) arrives at Castle Dracula. Ostensibly he has come to take on a role of cataloguing the library of Dracula (Christopher Lee). But at the outset we find out that, unlike the character from the Stoker novel, Harker knows full well who and what Dracula is and has come with the express intent to rid the world of this cursed fiend.

Van Eyssen as Harker

 

A woman approaches Harker and begs him to help her escape from Dracula's evil clutches. But the woman (Valerie Gaunt) is really a vampire, one of Dracula's minions (although, technically, there are no "minions" in the film. One could easily get the idea that he can only control one victim at a time, as that is all he ever seems to amass during the course of the film. However, that may not be the case, as later films imply that he has a larger following). 

Valerie Gaunt as "Vampire woman"

 

Harker ends up being bitten by both the vampire woman and Dracula, but he still retains some sense of his own independence and faithfulness to his mission as he dispatches the woman in her coffin with a stake. But, too late, Dracula has come awake and traps him in the cellar, and that's the last we see of him alive.

Death of "Vampire woman"

 

Dracula tries to get his revenge on Harker for dispatching his vampire bride by making Harker's fiancee his new victim. Lucy (Carol Marsh) has been feeling out of sorts recently and has been diagnosed with a case of anemia by her doctor. Lucy is the sister of Arthur Holmwood (Michael Gough) and sister-in-law to Mina (Melissa Stribling).. The film combines characters from the novel in a seemingly haphazard fashion, but at only 82 minutes in length, I guess some concessions had to be made... The fly in the ointment of Dracula's nefarious plans, however, is the arrival of an old enemy, Professor Van Helsing (Peter Cushing). He is tasked with telling both the Holmwoods, and Lucy about the death of Harker.

Stribling, Gough and Cushing

Carol Marsh as Lucy

 

Van Helsing knows of Dracula's true nature, but he has the devil's own time in trying to get anyone to take his suggestions seriously. (What? Put garlic flowers up in the room? And lock all windows and doors after dark? And what's this all about that stupid superstition about keeping a Christian cross lying about in plain sight?) Eventually, of course, Van Helsing does convince Holmwood of the necessity, but only after his wife starts to exhibit strange behaviors.

Ultimately, of course, it appears that Van Helsing is successful at dispatching Dracula, but if you know anything about horror cinema, you know that somehow this is not the final end for our villain. You know the old saying "you can't keep a good man down"? Well, apparently you can't do it with a vampire either...

 

The film was released in it's home nation of the U.K. as Dracula, but U.S. distributors were worried that the American public might confuse it with the 1931 Tod Browning version of the character. (Although how that might happen is confusing to me... surely no one would mistake Christopher Lee for Bela Lugosi, but then maybe they were worried that people wouldn't get past the title to realize it couldn't possibly be a re-issue of the classic Universal movie...)

The film was a box office success. It originally cost £81,000 (which converts to about $275,000 in 1958 monies) and grossed well over $3 million in ticket sales. On Rotten Tomatoes it holds at 89% Fresh, pretty damn good for an independent film by still virtually untested studio. 

Both Lee and Cushing stand out in this film: Lee all the more so, because his brief scenes are memorable even in and of itself. Apparently. according to someone who has WAY more time on their hands than I do, Lee as Dracula only occupies about 7 of the 82 minutes running time of the film. Cushing, who got top billing in the credits, as needs be, occupies much more screen time, but if you want to be honest about it, you are likely to remember the villainy and  menace of Lee's Dracula more than you are of Cushing's mild sympathetic Van Helsing. 

The rest of the cast is pretty much workman like. Even Michael Gough who made a fairly big impact in the Batman movies of the late 80's / early 90's as Bruce Wayne's butler almost seems to fade into the woodwork here as Holmwood. The rest of the case don't have much impact at all. Wikipedia articles on each of the main cast members say that they are each "most well-known" for having appeared in this film. But then you don't come to a Hammer horror film for Oscar worthy performances: you come to them for the straightforward shock of the evil characters.

Lee, who was a stickler for faithfulness to the original concept in the Stoker novel would eventually become  disenchanted with the Hammer version of Dracula. He was quoted as saying about Dracula that his regret was that he had  "never been able to present the Count exactly as Bram Stoker described him." This may have been part of what convinced him to step away from the vampire role when the second film was being produced.

 

 

The Brides of Dracula (1960): 

The second Dracula feature film from Hammer did not have Christopher Lee in it (more's the pity), but it did have Peter Cushing reprising his role as Prof. Van Helsing. Lee, for his part, was afraid of getting typecast if he were to reprise the Dracula role (among other reasons.) The script had been already plotted with the idea of Lee returning, but since he declined a new script was written, focusing more on Cushing's Van Helsing. The result was that the first script was one that even Cushing wanted nothing to do with, so I guess a panicked production team immediately cranked out a new one, one that was more pleasing to their potential star.

To draw in the paying crowd, an attempt to connect Brides to it's predecessor included the Dracula name. And, while there is indeed a vampire in the film, it is not named "Dracula", nor is there any real hint of the character being even related to the character. All you essentially get is the Van Helsing character continuing his own quest to eradicate the world of the scourge of un-dead bloodsuckers.  

The film picks up somewhere after the events in the previous film. Dracula himself is still dead (and not just un-dead, but really, really dead...) But he has left behind some remnants of his reign of terror. As the narrator at the beginning says "his disciples live on, to spread the cult and corrupt the world". 

Note: In many of the vampire film lore traditions, the descendants of the original head vampire are usually destroyed (or revert to normality, if not too far along...) when the head vampire is dispatched. (See the ending of the previous movie...) But not in the context of this film. Hammer tended to play fast and loose with the traditional rules when it came to the sequels...

The movie begins with the arrival of Marianne (Yvonne Monlaur) at an inn on her way to a teaching position at a school for girls. The coachman drives off and abandons her, leaving her to the mercy of the innkeeper, but the innkeeper professes that "there is no room at the inn."

Luckily (or unluckily), the appearance of a Baroness Meinster (Martita Hunt) saves her from having to sleep in the stable. She takes Marianne to her castle, which is conveniently nearby. 

 

There Marianne discovers that the Baroness' son, Baron Meinster (David Peel) is also a resident at the castle.  

 

 

It appears that the Baron is being kept prisoner. He is chained up in his own lodgings in a remote part of the castle. Despite the fact that the villagers think he is dead, and the Baroness says he is nuts, the Baron convinces Marianne to steal a key from his mother's bedroom and free him. Bad mistake! Because the Baron is actually a vampire, and the shackles were what was keeping him from roaming free.

The Baron kills his mother (or more to the point, turns her into a vampire). He has an ally in a servant, Greta (Freda Jackson), who along with his mother had been luring young girls for him to feed off their blood.  With mom out of the way, the Baron has plans to get as many women for his concubine (the titular brides). He gets a couple, but his real designs are  on Marianne.

 

As usual, the fly in the ointment is the appearance of Dr. Van Helsing (Peter Cushing). Van Helsing, having dispatched the head honcho vampire, Dracula, in the previous film, is now trying to rid the world of the rest of the scourge, including Baron Meinster, whom he is aware is one of the vampires.

 

The Baron manages to lure and turn a couple of girls before Van Helsing traps him at an old mill. In the ensuing battle the Baron knocks out Van Helsing and puts the bite on him. For all intents and purposes it seems that Van Helsing may become a vampire himself, but he seems to find a way to stop it from happening. (And if it was that easy, then why doesn't he do the same thing for the victims he encounters prior to their succumbing to vampirism? This is the only quibble I have with an otherwise very entertaining entry in the series.)

 

The Brides of Dracula was released as a double feature (paired with The Leech Woman) . It was not entirely well received. Many critics were along the same lines as The New York Times crtic, Bosley Crowther, who said "another repetition of the standard tale of the vampire ... There is nothing new or imaginative about it."

On the other hand, there were a few who had some good words for it. Leslie Halliwell is quoted as saying "The best of the Hammer Draculas, with plenty of inventive action, some classy acting and good sense of place and period." On a budget of only £120,000, it cleaned up with well over it's cost. It holds a 75% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, making it 4th overall in the list of 9 Hammer Dracula outings.

My personal opinion is that I think it is better than the first one, although I may be in a minority there. (The first one comes in at #3). I am withholding my opinion of it overall until I wrap this series up later this week, but I still think it held my interest much more. Part of that may be due to the fact that I found Monlaur such an attractive female victim for the bloodsucker.  Hey, if I was the Baron I would have chosen her over any of the others as my primary future bride myself...

 

Tune in tomorrow for part II, when I will be reviewing Dracula: Prince of Darkness and Dracula Has Risen From the Grave.

Until next time, drive safely folks. And it is night time now, so be on the lookout for bats and charming entrancing men on the road.

Quiggy

 

   

The Power of 7

 

 

This is an entry for the Legends of Western Cinema Week hosted by Hamlette's Soliloquy and Along the Brandywine

 

 

The magic of 7 has a power. The number 7 is "universally considered one of the most fascinating and mystical digits, holding deep significance across mathematics, science and human culture". (quoted from AI)

It is important in many religions. For instance, in the Judeo-Christian mythology, 7 is the number of days assigned to the creation story (6 days creating and 1 day of resting for the efforts God put into making the Earth). In the Islamic mythology, there are 7 Heavens, and one must circle Mecca 7 times when visiting. In the Hindu mythology there are 7 higher worlds and 7 underworlds. In the Buddhist mythology, it is a legend that the Buddha took 7 steps on the day of his birth.

There were 7 Wonders of the Ancient World: (The Colossus at Rhodes, The Great Pyramid of Giza, The Hanging Gardens of Babylon, The Lighthouse at Alexandria, The Mausoleum at Halicarnassus, The Statue of Zeus at Olympia and The Temple of Artemis at Ephesus).  As well as there are 7 Wonders of the Modern World: (Chichén Itzá, Christ the Redeemer, The Colosseum, The Great Wall of China, Machu Picchu, Petra and Taj Mahal).

There are "7 deadly sins" (envy, gluttony, greed, lust. pride, sloth and wrath). There are 7 continents on the Earth (Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Asia, Australia and Europe). Pretty much every school child is familiar with the mnemonic ROYGBIV, which denotes the 7 colors of the rainbow (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet). And, of course, 7 is considered a lucky number by a major portion of the human race. 

And let's not ignore the fact that there are numerous films with "seven", or 7, in the title: Snow White and the 7 Dwarves, 7 Men from Now, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers and one of my favorites, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (just to name a few). It is clear that the number 7 has had a profound influence and for good reason.

So, to celebrate the mystical number, as well as celebrating western cinema, I present these two great westerns, both about 7 iconic figures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Magnificent Seven (1960) and The Magnificent Seven (2016):

 

The inspiration for the 1960 version of the film came from a Japanese samurai film by Akira Kurosawa, Seven Samurai. The Kurosawa film was such a huge impact on many of the actors and people behind the cameras. Interesting to note, in 1960, a band of fairly unknown actors came together to produce an iconic film. 

In retrospect it might look like an all-star dream cast, but here's something you may not know: Yul Brynner gets the starring role and he had a pretty good cache of roles (12 or more), including an Oscar winning performance in The King and I. But the rest of the cast were basically just starting out. Steve McQueen, who was second headliner behind Brynner, had become well-known through his starring role on the TV series Wanted: Dead or Alive, but he had only been credited in 3 movies prior to this one. Charles Bronson had been in a few movies (about 15 or so), but many of those had been in uncredited roles as minor characters. Robert Vaughn had only 7 movie roles under his belt, Eli Wallach had only 3, and James Coburn was the "newbie" with only 2. The guy with the biggest background in film, Brad Dexter, had 17, although many of those were minor roles, like his co-star, Vaughn. Horst Buchholz, credited here with an "introducing Horst Buchholz", also had a pretty good background, with 15 movies, but those were all in his native Germany. It was indeed his first appearance in an American film. 

On paper, this film might have been a second feature to a more cast-enhanced major picture, but it did become an iconic film, possibly because of the retrospect of it's perceived "all-star" cast. Indeed, the talents of the seven do come through, some more than others. Aside from it's ostensible star, Brynner, the characters played by McQueen, Wallach and Buchholz make this film worth the time. The rest of the cast do hold their own in the scenes they are in, although a couple of them don't really stand out. (I would put Coburn's "knife guy" in that category, but if I have to be honest, it's probably just because he didn't get that much screen time).

The basic premise is that a Mexican bandit by the name of Calvera (Wallach) has been raiding villages and using his band of outlaws to take whatever he wants to survive, (instead of, I don't know, actually working for a living...?) The band raids many villages for this purpose, but the focus is on the one village that is the center of the film. The villagers are at a loss as to how to get out from under the thumb of Calvera until they are advised by an elder of the village, played by veteran Vladimir Sokoloff. (Fortunately, with the exception of Wallach and Sokoloff, most of the Mexican characters were actually played by Mexican actors).

The old man suggests they actually fight to save their village. Since none of them apparently know how to use guns, they end up deciding to hire gunmen. In a town across the border in America they find a guy who is willing to take on the role of finding some fellow gunmen to help the villagers, despite the pittance that the villagers are able to scrape together to hire them. Chris (Brynner) is their first, who manages to attract some other gunmen, including Vin (McQueen). This gang is rounded out with a Mexican/Irish gunman, Bernardo O'Reilly (Bronson), a knife expert, Britt (James Coburn), Lee (Robert Vaughn) and Harry (Dexter), a guy who is absolutely sure there is a hidden stash of valuables that Chris is not being honest about. The last member, Chico (Buchholz), is an ambitious but immature kid who wants to prove himself, despite Chris' reluctance to include him in the band.

The interplay between the main characters is what drives the film, as needs be, and even the minor characters, the townspeople put in a good appearance, especially when their unfamiliarity with firearms comes into play. Although, how an entire village could be comprised of only incompetent people with regards to guns in an Old West setting is a bit of a mystery. You mean to tell me that absolutely none of them have ever even gone on a hunting trip? Maybe you could find one in modern-day, when the panty-waist PC crowd is doing it's best to eradicate the existence of guns, but this is set in a time where the primary food source, outside of the farm, involved good old-fashioned hunting for it yourself.

I think the primary downfall of the story was this need to add a love story into the mix, as Chico attracts the attention of one of the native girls. Given the relative short window of the seven in town, it seems highly unlikely, and you just know, even before it happens, how this is going to turn out. (To be fair, there was a love interest subplot in the Kurosawa film, too, so maybe I'm just being overly critical, but it still comes off as contrived to me...)

In this later era it seems that the story may be somewhat reminiscent of modern movies of the same theme: a band of strikingly different "heroes" come together to defeat a common enemy. MCU's The Avengers, anyone? Easy ones would be Chris as he enigmatic duty bound leader compared to Captain America and the eager but over confident newbie Chico compared to Spiderman. A case could be made to compare Britt, who comes off as rather stoic and introverted to Hawkeye and Harry as a rash and maybe loose cannon type to Hulk. I can also see similarities between O'Reilly and Thor, both of whom are hiding a compassionate heart behind a gruff exterior.

The ultimate showdown occurs as Calvera gets the drop on the seven and encourages them to leave town with their lives intact (although not necessarily their dignity, which is why they ultimately have to return to the town and do battle with the enemy. Not all of them are going to come through intact, however, and it's probably a sure bet you can figure out which ones will be the last men standing if you know anything about how Hollywood played out these kinds of stories.

The essence of the film is the message that it flings, without shame, into your face, along the lines of "would you rather die on your feet or live on your knees?" If the answer is the latter, then maybe this movie is not one that would appeal to you, but if you are like me, a staunch believer in not letting any man govern how you will live your life, you will love the message, even if you feel sorrow for the heroes who have to "die on their feet".  

In the 2016 sequel, although the basic premise is still there, the characters and their goal is a bit different. In this outing, instead of a roaming bandit, we get the ultimate enemy, a capitalist land grabber who is trying to muscle the townspeople to sell their land and move, so he can have sole exclusive rights to the gold mine in the neighborhood.  

The same basic background comes into play as the villagers in the remake seek to find some hardy heroes to help them drive off the land grabbers. The bad guy in this film, Bartholomew Bogue (Peter Sarsgaard), is basically a cardboard cutout of the unscrupulous industrialist you get in most films of this type these days. Your opinion of the characterization may hinge just on which side of the political fence you are on. To me it seems that the film makers went out of their way to present a negative depiction of a capitalist. In other words, Bogue is a Republican and, therefore, the ultimate in evil as far as Hollywood is concerned. Not to defend his character, but would anybody really go to such lengths in real life to get what they want? For God's sake, they even have him intentionally burning down the town church. 

Sam Chisolm (Denzel Washington) is hired by a citizen of the town, which is called Rose Creek (and if that isn't an apt name for a town full of innocent "flower children" {my observation}, then I don't know what is...). Chisolm goes about gathering an assortment of malcontents to help him go to Rose Creek to take charge of the town over the nefarious Bogue. 

His first compadre is a man he meets in a bar, Farraday (Chris Pratt). Next he tracks down an outlaw named Vasquez ( Manuel Garcia-Rulfo). Chisolm is basically an officer of the law / bounty hunter, but he promises Vasquez, who is a wanted man, that if Vasquez joins his team, and comes out alive, that Chisolm will no longer be one of his, Vasquez's, hunters. Next up is the Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke), who just happens to be accompanied by a fellow outlaw, Billy Rocks (Byung-hun Lee). After convincing these two they track down a mountain man, Horne (Vincent D'Onofrio). The last man to join the team is a renegade Comanche, Red Harvest (Martin Sensmeir).

Note: One of the things I like about this film is that the main characters are not, as was true in earlier days of filmmaking, white people posing as other races. Vasquez is played by a Mexican actor, Billy is played by a an Asian actor and Red Harvest is played by a Native American. 

The first battle in Rose Creek is a bit on the unbelievable side, if you ask me. Sure, the seven catch Bogue's men unawares, but they kill off an astounding 22 of the bad guys without so much as a nick from a whizzing bullet. (I think Robicheaux just hurt himself on his hand in the fight...) Chisolm sends the town sheriff off to tell Bogue the battle is on, and then the seven begin their preparations for what is bound to come next. (You don't REALLY think Bogue is going to throw in the towel and say "oh. well, it was worth a try...", do you?)

There are many similarities to the 1960 film here, not the least of which is that the town is basically full of incompetents who seemingly have never fired a gun in their life. But, stacked up against Calvera, Bogue could put him to shame when it comes to sheer determination to win at all costs. The characters that Chisolm amasses to help in the fight are a bit more intense than the original seven. They are sympathetic members, to be sure, but somehow most of them don't really exude the charisma to make themselves likeable. 

I personally would like to hang around Billy, just because he's a real "knife" guy, but I would be nervous about ticking him off.  The standout character, for me, however, is Horne. Maybe it's just because I have an affinity for loners who prefer the company of nature as opposed to the company of people. (Also, I can't think of any role that wasn't improved just by having D'Onofrio in the role. Even his much-maligned stint as Edgar in Men in Black).

Ultimately, as in the first film, the plot boils down to an action packed battle between the good guys and the bad guys, and in case you were hoping differently, some of the seven don't walk away from the fight unscathed. 

In terms of box office, the remake just barely made a profit in the U.S. ($93 million to a budget of $90 million), but if you include the European sales. which added another $68 million to the coffers, it fared fairly well. By comparison, the original also struggled initially. It would be ranked as a "bomb" by today's standards if it had only relied on it's original release. But after becoming a huge box office bonanza in Europe, it was re-released in the U.S. and really hit it's stride on the second release.

The 2016 version paled by comparison to the 1960 version, as per the critics. The 1960 version stands on Rotten Tomatoes at 93% Fresh, while the 2016 version only gets a 64%. This could be easily understandable, since remakes are usually viewed through a lens that distorts it. If you already have a high opinion of an original, then anything that comes along and tries to create the same magic in a bottle will usually have at least some negativity associated with it, pre-viewing, unless the viewer is astoundingly open-minded to it. (I can't be eternally classed as "open-minded" to a remake... God forbid they ever follow through with the threat to remake The Warriors. But I think I'm more receptive to them than most.)

All in all, I would say I much prefer this remake, plot-wise, to the original, although if I were picking one solely on the acting, I would go with the 1960 version. Despite the aforementioned fact that I like the Billy character, I wasn't overly impressed with Lee as an actor. Even Pratt and Hawke pale by comparison to the likes of McQueen and Vaughn (whose characters they are embodying in this remake). Washington, on the other hand, (dare I say it? or is it sacrilege?) gives Brynner a run for his money.

Once or twice over the span of this blog I have referenced an older blog that I had run that has since gone on to the cyberspace ghetto of "Where Is It?". That earlier general interest blog had a weekly feature that involved me reviewing a movie. So, at that time, I did a watch of the first incarnation of the theme, Kurosawa's Seven Samurai. I remember it only vaguely here, some 20 years later, but as I recall it was a fantastic movie. I'm going to add it to my re watch list and hopefully visit it once again for The Midnite Drive-In. Warning: If you decide to watch all three "Seven" movies in succession, better set aside a whole day. You are going to need 8 hours, not including restroom breaks! Which is one of the reasons why this entry only covers the two American productions.

That's it for this time. Drive safely, folks. 

Quiggy

 

H. G. Wells Week Part I: The Time Machine

 This is my first entry in a celebration of my first hero in the writing world, H. G. Wells.  When I graduated from Bugs Bunny kiddie books to reading at a higher level of comprehension, the first books I got into were science fiction.  I can't say for certain whether it was an H. G. Wells book, but I do know that from first grade on, I gravitated to science fiction over every other genre available to me. And time travel was always top in that genre.  (Maybe that's why I also ended up as a history major in college).

 

 

 

Whether or not it actually was The Time Machine that was my actual first foray into Wells, it was HIS first foray into writing novels.  He had previously published some short fiction, including a piece he wrote in college called The Chronic Argonauts, but this was his first real success.  And what a story to kick off your career.

In the novel the main character is simply referred to as The Time Traveler (note: I use the American spelling to avoid that annoying spell correct, but the original is spelled with two Ls, as is the British custom), although he would garner a name for obvious purposes in both radio and film adaptations.  The first person narrative of the story is such that we really have two first person narrators.  Of course, the bulk of the story is The Time Traveler relating his adventures as he used his time machine to travel to the far distant future. But we also get Mr. Hillyer, the character who remains in the background mostly as an observer during The Time Traveler's oration of his escapades.

Wells was an avowed socialist and much of his fiction is tinged with socialist ideology.  The story of that far distant future with the Eloi and the Morlocks is ostensibly a parable of what life would evolve into if the current state of affairs (i.e. non-socialist) was allowed to continue. (And note: I do not intend this or any other entry in my blog to espouse a socialist or any other political ideology.  I just note it for it's historical aspect.)

The Time Machine as a story has been adapted for the big screen twice (three times if you include Time After Time, but that was only the jumping off point for the movie, and after the initial idea of time travel is introduced, it goes off in a different direction.)It was also the subject of a made-for-TV film broadcast in 1978.

None of the adaptations include the final trip that the Time Traveler makes after escaping the Morlocks in 802,701.  Before heading back to his own time, the Time Traveler presses on to see how the world actually ends.  It is my guess that part of the reason it never made it to any of the films is that it's pretty much a downer.  Read the full length novel to get this, as I won't delve into it here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 The Time Machine (1960):

The first film version of The Time Machine was released in 1960 and featured Rod Taylor and Alan Young.  It was also the second H.G. Wells book to be turned into a film by legendary director George Pal.  (His first foray into Wells was in 1953 with a version of War of the Worlds).

Some interesting notes to begin:  The original Time Traveler in the Film was to have been Paul Scofield, but Pal went with Rod Taylor.  Also considered for the part were James Mason and (just imagine) David Niven. In the film all the characters in the novel were given actual names. As stated above, the author (as one of the visitors to the Time Traveler's house) only referred to the main character as "The Time Traveler, but he also only called the guests such names as "the Medical Man", "the Psychologist", "the Editor" etc. Only one character, minor in the novel, was identified: Filby.

In the film, the cast of visitors was reduced to a more manageable number of four.  The guests were Filby (Alan Young), Hillyer (Sebastian Cabot), Kemp (Whit Bissell) and Bridewell (Tom Helmore).  And the Time Traveler himself was given the name "George". His credit is actually as H. George wells, so he is supposed to be the author. 

 

 

 

George, at the beginning, is late for a dinner date with his companions.  He bursts into the room disheveled and begins to relate the story what has happened. To begin with he reminds them of the last week's encounter which he had introduced the concept of a machine that could travel through time, exhibiting a scale model which he causes to zip off into the future.

His friends are disbelieving of his claim that the model went off to the future, and leave.  But George actually has a full scale model in his laboratory which he proceeds to test out after his friends leave. He discovers on his first test that he has actually managed to jump ahead six hours.  Encouraged he goes forward in time, stopping briefly in 1917 and 1942.  (Right during World War I and World War II.)

Discouraged that man still wars with each other he jumps back into his machine, but violent events cause him to stop once again, this time in 1966 (5 years in the future from the time of the movie's production).  Once again, George is disappointed because the world is on the verge of war. In fact, air raid sirens are wailing calling people to hide in the fallout shelters.  George manages to get on his machine and escape just as nuclear weapons begin to fall.

He presses on, but finds his machine encased in a mountain.  (And how the machine manages to not be crushed by this, even though it is hurtling through time is best not to be dwelt upon...) Finally the mountain falls away and George stops the time machine.  He finds himself in a lush garden landscape in the year 802,701.  His machine stops outside a large sphinx-like structure.  George goes to investigate his new surroundings, absolutely sure that civilization must have survived over the centuries.

He finds them in the person of a race called the Eloi.  The eloi seem to live in an idyllic heaven, not having to work, but they are child-like.  They show no curiosity, and at one point, a girl is drowning in the river but only George has the wherewithal to jump in and save her.  His rescuee is Weena (Yvette Mimieux), but even she shows no curiosity in her situation.

 

 

 

The Eloi are basically unhelpful to George in trying to find out what has happened.  Frustrated, George demands an explanation and is led to a library where all the books are in such disrepair that they fall apart.  Disgusted George claims he is going back to his own time. But as it turns out, the Morlocks, a race that lives underground,  have moved his time machine inside the Sphinx and no one in the Eloi seems to have any care.

It also comes to light that the Eloi are being raised and cultivated like cattle to feed the Morlocks. It is up to George to save the round of new "livestock" the Morlocks enticed into their underground facilities, which include his new found friend, Weena.  And in the process retrieve his time machine.

As stated above, when George escapes the Morlocks he does not travel on further into the future but instead returns to his own time and is in the process of relating his adventures to the guests seen at the beginning of the film.

The film received mixed reviews upon it's release (mainly for content, not for the acting ability of it's two main stars).  It did get an Academy Award for Best Special Effects at Oscar time. (And George Pal was a wizard at special effects. Several of his previous films had garnered this prestigious award, including one for War of the Worlds (coming later in this H.G.Wells Week blog party.)

 

 

 

The Time Machine (2002): 

In the early part of the 21st century Wells' book got another stab at the big screen.  This time it was directed by Simon Wells, who just happened to be the great-grandson of H. G. Wells himself.  (And maybe there was some back room wheeling and dealing to get that to happen.  Although Simon had directed a few animated features this was, and so far is, his only foray into live action film.)

The connection to Wells' book is tenuous, at best, with this output.  About the only things that coincide with the original novel is that a guy does indeed create a time machine, and the main character does indeed end up in the future, eventually, at the year 802,701.  And of course the races in the future do consist of the Eloi and the Morlocks.  But the parallels deviate quite dramatically from the book after that.

The main character, Dr. Alexander Hartdegen (Guy Pearce) is a professor who spends more time doing pure research than devoting his life to making a profit from his endeavors.  His one love, aside from research, is Emma (Sienna Guillory), a woman who he is determined to make his wife.  He is going to meet her to propose.  But during the proposal they are accosted by a mugger who accidentally shoots and kills Emma.

 

 

 

Distraught, Alexander spends the next few years trying to develop a time machine.  The only motive and the only goal is to go back to that point in time and try to prevent the events that lead to Emma's death from happening. And, having created his machine (a triumph of technology and far more impressive than the contraption Rod Taylor's Time Traveler made in the 1960 film), Alexander proceeds back to try to prevent the death of his enamorata.

 

 

 

But, to his disappointment, although she is not killed by the mugger, a happenstance accident still causes her death.

So Alexander decides there must be some way to discover how to save her by traveling to the future.  He stops off first in 2030 (and even at this date 20 years after the movie, a lot of the "future" still has yet to happen, including a highly interactive AI named Vox (played by Orlando Jones) who tries to help Alexander).  In 2030 we hear a news broadcast that there are plans to blast the moon with bombs in order to create a living space for people to move and live on the moon.

But when Alexander goes forward another 7 years, the project that was only in planning stages in 2030 had devastating effects.  It destroyed the moon, and the result was that the Earth became virtually uninhabitable too.  So he progresses further into the future and through the magic of CGI we see the Earth basically transformed into a new planet. Finally, he stops the machine in 802701.

He is hurt during his landing and is rescued by Mara (Samantha Mumba) who nurses him back to health.  The race of Eloi live above ground (Literally. They live in dwellings on the face of a cliff.) 

 

 

 The Morlocks, who live underground, venture above ground periodically to capture Eloi, and on this occasion capture, among others, Mara.  

Her brother, Kalen (played, coincidentally, by Omera Mumba, Samantha's real brother) helps Alexander by leading him to the ruins of a library where he encounters, once again, Vox, who tells him how to find the underground dwelling of the Morlocks.

He is captured by the Morlocks and meets up again with Mara.  He also meets with a bigwig Morlock (Jeremy Irons).

 

 

 

 The Uber-Morlock, as he is called in the credits, finally tells him a fact that should have been obvious if Alexander had been the genius he was supposed to be.  The reason he can't change the past and save Emma is because if he did, then he would never have invented the time machine to try to save her, the ultimate "grandfather" paradox in new form.  (And here I will explain the grandfather paradox for those of you unfamiliar with it.  What if you created a time machine and went back in time and in the process accidentally killed your grandfather before he met your grandmother?  You would not have existed, and therefore you would not have created the time machine in the first place,)

The final minutes of the film involve Alexander fighting off the Morlocks and ultimately creating a new society. 

This movie is not nearly as cohesive as the first one, nor is it really as good.  But it is entertaining in its own right, and the special effects are good in their own right.

 As a footnote I will say that The Time Machine .did inspire another time travel movie that came from the same concept,Time After Time. I won't delve into that one here, saving it for a future review, but suffice to say H. G. Wells himself ends up chasing Jack the Ripper into the future to prevent him from committing his atrocities in another time period.

Love Over Gold

This is my entry in the Stewart Granger Blogathon hosted by Maddy Loves Her Classic Films.

The song North to Alaska by Johnny Horton was the theme to the movie.  The song came out before the movie was filmed by several months and turned out to be Johnny Horton's last big hit.  He died in an automobile accident shortly before the movie was released.

The story of the gold rush of Alaska may be overshadowed by the previous gold rush in California in 1849, but it still has some cache of interest to those of us interested in history.  The movie North to Alaska covers some of the feel.

It should be noted that the movie was filmed in California, which explains why the terrain doesn't exactly seem right.  But if you don't let that bother you, it has a great feel for the time of the movie.  (Whether or not the Nome of 1901 had such muddy streets or not...)

North to Alaska (1960):

Sam McCord (John Wayne) and George Pratt (Stewart Granger) and his brother Billy (Fabian) have been working a gold mine near Nome, in Alaska.  And they have been very successful at it.

Sam is on his way to Seattle to get some more mining supplies, and as an added bonus he is tagged to bring back with him Jenny, the love of George.  Jenny and George have been corresponding over the past three years and George is infatuated and plans to marry her.  He has even built a honeymoon cabin just off the way from the main cabin the three men share.

Sam arrives in Seattle, not knowing what to expect, but he finds more than he bargained for.  Jenny is a maid in a rich man's house.  Not only that, but she gave up on George some time before and is now married to the head butler of same rich man's house.  Sam, who doesn't have a high opinion on women in the first place, is disgusted.  As a result, he decides to get drunk over it.

While in Seattle, he goes to the Hen House, a local bordello.  There he meets "Angel" (Capucine), whose real name is Michelle Bonet, and is French.  It seems to Sam she would be the perfect substitute for George, since Jenny was also French. (They all look alike...?)  He convinces her to go with him to Alaska.  But Michelle gets the wrong impression.  She thinks she is going to be with Sam.

To make matters worse, during the trip, Sam is such a gallant gentleman, it causes Michelle to fall in love with Sam.  When the truth is revealed, Michelle is of course distraught, but by that time she is already in Nome.  She originally plans to return to Seattle, but changes her mind.

Back at the base camp, George of course is angry about the situation.  He wants Jenny and thinks Sam either got drunk and forgot her, or some equally malevolent act.  And Billy has a puppy dog love for Michelle, whom she rejects because, after all, she is in love with Sam.  Eventually, George, who realizes that Michelle is in love with Sam decides to try to manipulate Sam into admitting he loves Michelle in return.

Meanwhile, in Nome, Frankie Canon (Ernie Kovacs), a small-time hustler who has managed to finagle himself into being a bigwig has designs on Michelle, too.  It turns out they were an item way back when he was a gambler and she was a prostitute in New Orleans.  And he thinks she's back in town to be with him.  Plus he has lots of money, all acquired illegally, including managing to file false claims on several gold mines in the area.  One of which is Sam and George's.

A rare comedy from the Wayne oeuvre, this one has plenty of misunderstandings and double talk standards of the genre which, while maybe not as hilarious as, say, Arsenic and Old Lace  or Blazing Saddles in the sense of laugh out loud comedy, is still pretty funny.  Check it out.



Time to saddle up and ride home.  Drive safely, folks.

Quiggy