This is a blog that is devoted entirely to film analysis. I tend to analyze movies in a historical context. What were the cultural trends at the time? What was the rationale behind the movie?
I also tend to write about lesser-known movies, as there really isn't much more that can be said about most mainstream movies. I hope you enjoy!!!
There are two types of people out there: those who
absolutely loathe horror and those that can’t get enough of them; I definitely
fall in the latter category as a good portion of my movie collection is of the
horror genre. If you ask any person what
their top ten horror films are, you would probably get a different list each
time. I have done better, rather than list my top ten horror films; I have
opted instead to list my top 25 horror films.
I initially was going to do a top ten list, but the more I thought of
it, the more I realized that there were so many to choose form that ten just
would not do. This is by no means a “GREATEST” horror films list; in fact many
films on this list are more guilty pleasures than they are high quality film making When all is said and done movies are a form of entertainment, and
each of these titles are entertaining in their own sick and twisted ways. I’m a
big fan of old school horror and it’s fairly apparent when you read this list;
all the films were made prior to 1990. It’s not to say that there hasn't been
any worthwhile horror films in the last twenty years, it’s just that very few
have been memorable. Scream is the exception, but I find it
tad bit overrated. It got rave reviews by the critics for the way it “sent up”
the horror genre, but it was hardly the first film to do so. Practically every
a decade has a horror film parodies the conventions of the time. The little
loved The Mummy’s Ghost has a scene
in which a security guard is listening to a horror program on the radio, unaware
that it is foreshadowing his soon to be demise.
25. Friday the 13th, Part 2(1981)
Dir: Steve Miner
Running Time: 87 min.
The Friday the 13thseries is one of the most critically maligned franchises in the history of
cinema and justifiably so. They are
horribly contrived, extremely unoriginal in their execution, and often are
cluttered with one dimensional characters that have no narrative function,
except to be killed in many horrible and gruesome ways. Yet, despite all this,
I absolutely love the first four Friday
the 13thfilms. My inner critic tells me this is wrong, yet I
enjoy them nonetheless. They are horror
at its most basic: Teenagers isolated in the woods being stalked by an ax wielding maniac. It doesn't get any simpler than that and the first four Friday the 13thfilms exploit
this to great effect. The later entries tended to be ridiculously over the top
with Jason becoming more super human as the series progressed.
Part 2 is
my favorite for a few reasons:
1)Jason, despite his apparent resurrection from
the dead, is kind of clumsy. It brings an air of realism to the series
that the later films lack and it doesn't seem a mismatch when the heroine
confronts him face to face at the film’s end.
2)Best heroine in the series. Amy Steel (as Ginny) is far and away my
favorite leading lady in the entire series. The character of Ginny is a fairly
intelligent character that uses her field of study (child psychiatry) to bring
down Jason. However, she also has a nice sense of humor about her, especially
at the beginning when she shows up her boyfriend in front of the other camp
counselors. She’s easy to like.
3)It strays from the norm in regards to the
character of Ted (Stu Charno). Ted takes delight in playing pranks on the other
counselors, which means that he is ripe for the picking. In the first Friday
and the third, the prankster of the group dies fairly early in the proceeding.
You spend the entire film wondering how Ted is going to get his…..BUT HE SURVIVES.
Ted and other counselors go to the bar and are spared being massacred. It’s a
rather nice, unexpected touch.
24. The Exorcist(1973)
Dir: William Friedkin
Running Time: 123 min.
The Exorcist is
not nearly as high on my list as it used to be; possibly because as I've gotten
older it just doesn't have the same impact it did when I was a teenager. In fact, I find the find the first half of
the film far more compelling than the second half, due to its understated nature.
The film is very methodical in how it slowly rules out the scientific as
embraces the supernatural for Regan’s (Linda Blair) condition. In a way it’s a
shame that the subtleties of the first half eventually give way to the fire and
brimstone of the second, because ambiguous route might have the served the
story better. Is Regan really possessed? Or is it in her mind? Are the priests
really giving her an exorcism? Or is it all the power of suggestion? Still,
it’s a genuinely well made film and the acting is top notch, especially Ellen
Burstyn as Regan’s suffering mom. The Exorcist is what I liked to call an “aftershock”
horror film; it’s not necessarily scary while watching it, but it stays with
you for quite some time. I remember a week I had watched it for the first time,
I was alone in the house and kept thinking of the possessed Regan. Every time I
heard a creak in the house I jumped. When I had to go upstairs to my room, I
grabbed the family dog for protection. At the top of the stairs was the attic
door and I was convinced something would jump out and grab me.
23. Alien (1979)
Dir: Ridley Scott
Running Time: 117 min.
Aliens takes “the old dark house”
premise and transports it to space. There’s really nothing at all original
about Alien, the premise is extremely
reminiscent of the underrated 50s thriller It!
The Terror From Beyond Space. However, this is one case where the “rip off”
is a vast improvement over the original source. For one thing, the
production design of Alien vastly
trumps It! The Terror From Beyond
Space. This is largely due to the
fact that Alien had a fairly decent
sized budget, while It! was bogged
down by an extremely low budget. The
creature in Alien is genuinely
frightening, while the creature in It! is
rather silly looking when seen in full light (the filmmaker Edward L. Cahn, for
the most part, does an effective job handling the creature by either shooting
in shadows, or only giving us quick glimpses of it). The chest bursting
sequence still packs wallop, despite the many sequels and imitations that have
followed.
22. Black Sabbath(1963)
Dir: Mario Bava
Running Time: 92 min.
(SPOILERS)
Mario Bava is one of the most influential horror directors in cinema history,
he essentially created the slasher film with the wonderfully ridiculous Bay of Blood, while Black Sunday is probably the definitive “witch” movie. However, I prefer Black Sabbath, because it’s an anthology of stories that allows
Bava to exercise his style and it features the great Boris Karloff, who does
double duty as the narrator of the film and stars in the second story “The
Wurdalak,” in which he plays a vampire.
It should be noted that the American version
complete reshuffles the order of the stories and completely alters the
narrative of “The Telephone,” dropping the lesbian subtext in favor of a more
supernatural explanation. In “The
Telephone” a beautiful woman receives threatening phone calls supposedly from
her former boyfriend, who is behind bars. However, it is revealed an elaborate
ruse by her jilted lady friend, Mary, who essentially uses the threatening calls
as a way to get back together with Rosy.
After getting the phone calls, Rosy calls Mary and has her spend the
night, because she doesn't feel safe alone.
The next morning Mary writes Rosy a letter confessing her guilt, only
(HERE’S THE TWIST) to be strangled by Rosy's crazy ex-boyfriend, who has just escaped from
prison. The American version reedits the
story so the audience never sees the reveal that it is Mary making the phone
calls. Also, instead writing a confession at the end, Mary is seen writing a
note that says she’s going to help Rosy find a good doctor. It deflates any
tension that actually existed in the story, especially in one scene where Mary is seen brandishing a knife and looks like she's going to use it on Rosy. In the America version, it is supposedly the ghost of Rosy's ex-boyfriend that strangles Mary, which makes little sense, because he gets killed at the end of the story. Is it possible to kill a ghost? The American
version also makes the mistakes of putting the scariest story “The Drop of
Water” first, while in the Italian version is serves as a fitting climax to the
movie, as each story tops the previous one.
“The Drop of Water” concerns the story of a nurse that is haunted by the
corpse of a countess whose ring she has stolen.
21. A Nightmare on Elm Street(1984)
Dir: Wes Craven
Running Time: 92 min.
The thing that strikes me about the first A
Nightmare on Elm Street is that Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) is a genuinely
scary villain. This largely due to the fact that Wes Craven wisely keeps Freddy
in the shadows or never allows the audience to get a good look at him until the
ending of the film. This may seem
trivial, after all, the villain in a horror film is supposed to be scary, so
why make a big deal out of it? Well, mainly because as the series progressed
Freddy went from being the villain of the piece to the wise cracking hero. No longer did the audiences care about the
fate of the teenagers, but rather they went to see whatever crazy antics Freddy
had in store for them…..and laughed along with him. By the time of Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare, he
ceased being scary and was largely the comic relief. The absolute nadir of the
series was when Freddy was shown straddling a broom, shouting, “I’ll get you my
pretty!” Freddy’s Dead desperately
tries to be funny, but it’s just sad reminder of how far the series had
fallen.
Scooby Doo, Where Are You: Which Witch is Which? (Scoobypedia summary):After coming home from a fishing trip, the gang runs into a witch and zombie who have been haunting the swamp and scaring everyone off.
Mark of the Vampire (wikipedia summary): Sir Karell is found murdered in his own house with two tiny pinpoint wounds on his neck. Dr. Doskil, and Sir Karen's friend, Baron Otto, are convinced that the vampire, Count Mora, and his daughter, Luna, are responsible for the murder, but the Prague police inspector refuses to believe them. Now Sir Karell's daughter, Irena, is the count's next target. Enter Professor Zelen, an expert on vampires and the occult, who's sent into prevent her death. At the same time, secrets are revealed surrounding the circumstances of Sir Karell's death.
Scooby Doo, Where Are You was my favorite cartoon growing up as
a kid, mainly because I was a huge fan of monster movies, so it was always fun
to see the Mystery Inc. gang encounter a different monster (albeit fake one)
every week. The show would follow a simple formula: The gang randomly bumps into a supernatural being (ghost, mummy, werewolf,
etc), gather clues and, through a set of contrivances, catch the monster and unmask it as some poor schmoe out to make a quick buck. Then Scooby Doo would do something comical and everyone (sometimes even the
villain) would get a good laugh out of it.
My favorite
episode of Scooby Doo, Where Are You is
Which Witch is Which, because it has everything that is essential to Scooby
Doo:
1)Reused animation, or limited
animation as it known.
Scooby Doo, Where Are You often used the same animation over and over again
(ex: Close up of Freddy, The Mystery Machine Driving through a swamp) as a way
to save money. Which Witch Is Witch reuses the same shot of the Zombie holding a lantern twice in the episode.
The first instance occurs when the gang is driving down a dirt road and they see a man standing on the side of the road, holding a lantern.
Freddy decides to ask the stranger for directions, only to come face to face
with this:
The zombie moans and groans a few times and the gang drives away. A few
minutes later they stop off at a General Store and tell the owner Zeke about
their encounter with the zombie. Zeke tells the gang he's seen the zombie with his frog hunting partner, Zeb. In a bracketed flashback we are shown Zeke and Zeb wandering through the swamp with rifles, when they a stumble upon an old, green faced witch shouting incantations over a bonfire, just then (in a long shot) the zombie materializes out of nowhere, then it abrupt cuts to a close up of the zombie...holding the lantern. The frame is slightly cropped so the lantern is not as visible, but it sill occupies a good portion of the frame. What's even more shameful is that flashback happens less than a minute after the gang's first encounter with the zombie, so the image of him holding the lantern is still very much ingrained in the viewer's mind.
2)The first person the gang encounters is the villain. About 75% of the timethe first person the gang encounter turns out to
be the villain (or at least in on the hoax). After the gang encounters the zombie on the
road, the first person they encounter is Zeke, owner of the General Store, and
a regular expert on the whole zombie/witch phenomenon. When Zeke tell them
whole the backstory on the zombie and witch, there are only two conclusions that
loyal Scooby Doo followers can draw:
Either, Zeke is being hoaxed by some pranksters
out for personal gang.
Or,
Zeke is in on the hoax, along with his friend Zeb.
Since, there are no other characters in the episode (other than the
sheriff) it is definitely the latter.
3)
An over elaborate, nonsensical scheme by the villain.
It is revealed that Zeke and Zeb hijacked an armored car and sunk
it in the swamp, so they could come back for the money later. However, as time
passed they forgot where they sunk the armored car, so they donned the disguise
of the witch and the zombie to frighten away intruders, while they searched the swamps for the lost loot. Of course, given how
sparsely populated the area is, they could have easily carried out their search
at normal hours without having aroused any suspicious whatsoever. Sure, they
might have succeeded in scaring a few of the locals, but there are always going to be the curious few who want to catch a glimpse of the witch and zombie. I could
easily see this turning into an episode of Fact
of Faked, in which Ben and the gang decide to test whether or not a video
of the zombie/witch is indeed fact. Or
imagine, while donning the disguises of the zombie and witch, Zeke and Zeb
encounter an armed local, who is a “shoot first, ask questions later" type, then they would be screwed.
4)The villain remains in character,
even though no one is around. This is a common
occurrence in Scooby Doo (and most
Hanna Barbara mystery cartoons as well) where the villain will still carry on
the act of being a monster, even though no one is around to witness it. Often there will be close ups of the villain hiding behind bushes, or just randomly
cackling while the Mystery Machine drives away.
In Which Witch Is Which, there
is a scene in which the witch (Zeke) and the zombie (Zeb) come across a bag of
money and the witch overwhelmed with joy crones, “LOOK AT THE MONEY! MONEY! MONEY! MONEY!” Of
course, Scooby is in the bag and hops away. However, prior to Scooby’s
hilarious entrance, Zeke and Zeb had no idea anyone was around. In fact, they are convinced that they have successfully scared away those meddling kids and that dog, so why carry on with the act? Are they method actors devoted to their craft or are they
just paranoid?
5)The reveal at the end is more absurd than a paranormal explanation.
The highlight of every episode of Scooby
Doo was the reveal at the end, in which the gang would take turns
explaining the villains’ motives and how the trickery was done. However,
usually their debunking was far more ridiculous than a paranormal explanation . For
instance, if there was a ghost involve, usually it was done through the use of
film projectors; problem is the projectors the villains used were usually of
the 16 mm variety and certainly did not possess the ability to project images
onto thin air. In Which Witch Is Which, it is revealed that the witch’s floating
ability was accomplished by a giant balloon shaped like a witch, though
it hardly explains why the balloon was cackling while in mid flight or that the
balloons look absolutely nothing like the witch the gang witnessed floating on the
ship. The witch appears and disappears
through the use of smoke bombs, but usually it’s a split second after the bomb
goes off and there’s nowhere the witch could be hiding to throw the bomb from
out of view. Sometimes, the writers of
Scooby Doo would often forget to explain away events that seemingly contradict
a rational explanation (floating knives for one). What makes this show so compelling is that you’re
often left with more questions than with answers, because of the lazy writing and bad animation.
Scooby Doo, Where Are You essentially revived a common plot
device that was prevalent throughout horror films in the silent and early sound era of film, the whole, “it was all a plot” ending. Like Scooby Doo, these films would revolve
around a small group of people being harassed by a monster, only for it to be unmasked
as a relative/benefactor hoping to keep the inheritance/treasure for himself; probably the famous of this subgenre is Mark of the Vampire. However, there are
two notable exceptions:
1) The hoaxers are the heroes. In Mark of the Vampire it is revealed that the vampire storyline is a
huge scam concocted by the protagonists into capturing a murderer, Baron Von
Zinden, though it’s never really explained why they think such an elaborate scheme
would work. Apparently the sight of the
walking corpse of his victim (Sir Karell Borotyn) will frighten Von Zinden into
confessing his crime.
2) Scooby Doo, Where Are You plays like a typical mystery thriller
(for kids), planting clues throughout the course of the episode, thus tipping
off the audience that the monster seen lurking about is a hoax. Mark of the Vampire, on the other hand,
plays like a straight horror film for 45 minutes, never so much as hinting that
this is an elaborate ruse to catch a murderer. The film goes to great lengths
to convince the audience that the vampires are genuine, only to pull the rug
out from under them. Even more frustrating is that as soon as it is revealed
the vampires are a ruse, they are not seen again until the very ending of the
film, in which they are shown taking off their makeup, while Bela Lugosi rants on about how great he was. There is no scene in which the
characters stand around and explain how the actors portraying the vampires
pulled off such clever trickery, thus leaving the audience with more questions than
answers.
Like Scooby Doo,
the unmasking at the end is far more implausible than a paranormal explanation,
mainly because it seems impossible that a troupe of stage actors could pull off
such high level trickery. Throughout the
course of the film, we are treated to the following scenes:
1)When Count Mora and his daughter Luna are first introduced, they seemingly walk through a giant spider web, leaving it completely intact, thus implying that they possess supernatural powers. This scene is a direct lift from 1931’s Dracula (also starring Bela Lugosi and directed by Tod Browning), in that film when Dracula is first introduced, he walks through a giant spider web, much to the amazement of the befuddled Renfield. The major difference is that Dracula is indeed a real vampire; whereas Count Mora and his daughter are later revealed to be actors posing as vampires. This fakery makes even less sense, because no one is around to witness this act. They apparently did it just for the hell of it.
2)Luna, through the apparent use of telepathic powers, lures the heroine (Irena) outside and proceeds to bite her neck. Irena is later to be in on the hoax, but as with the “walking through spider web” gag, this is completely unnecessary, as the man that is being tricked is not around to witness it. It would have been far simpler for Irena to let out a scream, pretend to faint, and paint two bite marks on her neck. Or maybe Count Mora and Luna are method actors, who really get into their parts.
3)The
servants describe to Professor Zelen that they saw a bat transform into Count
Mora out on the balcony. The butler is revealed to be in on the hoax, but he’s
also accompanied by the maid, who seemingly has no idea what is going on. Once
again, the real villain of the film (Baron Otto Von Zinden) is not around to
hear this account. Who exactly are they hoaxing again?
4)Luna
(sporting giant bag wings) is seen gliding from the second floor of the castle
down to the first floor, and for once Von Zinden is actually around to witness
it. This is a set up that doesn't really seem to effect Von Zinden one way or another, he kind of just nods it off with complete indifference.
The thing
that really gets lost in the narrative of Mark
of the Vampire is the fact that the vampire hoax DOESN’T WORK! The sight of
vampires lurking about doesn’t frighten Von Zinden into confessing his crime,
in fact he never confesses his guilt at all, but rather is hypnotized by
Professor Zelen into re-enacting the murder of Sir Karell Borotyn. Essentially,
the protagonists could have saved themselves a lot of time and money had they
just hypnotized Baron Von Zinden in the first place, rather than hiring stage
actors to sell the vampire ruse. But then again, the film would only be a half
hour long.
As noted
above, the stage actors portraying the vampires often remain in character, even
when no one is around to witness them. Throughout the course of the film, Count
Mora (Bela Lugosi) and his daughter will be seen lurking about, despite the
fact that no one is around to see them. The majority of Lugosi’s role consists
of reactions shots of him looking on, while the main characters walk about
without so much as batting an eye his way. Even more perplexing is that before
the vampires are revealed to be a ploy into tricking the lecherous Von Zinden,
there is a scene in which Luna is about to bite Irena’s neck, only to be
interrupted by the incompetent love interested Fedor. Luna lets out a creepy
hiss, grabs Irena by the hand and runs away, while Fedor is stopped in his
tracks by Count Mora. This scene is fairly pointless to the overall narrative
of the film and its only function is to give the audience one last shock before we get into the final act, in which the heroes capture Von Zinden.
There are two facts one needs to know about Mark
of the Vampire in order to understand it better:
1)It is a remake of the 1927 silent
film London After Midnight also
directed by Tod Browning and starring the great Lon Chaney. London After Midnight’s claim to fame is
that is a lost film, the only thing that survives from the production are a
series of stills that show Chaney donning genuinely frightening make up.
2)Over twenty minutes of footage was
cut, which might explain why the film feels so disjointed at times. Top billed Lionel Barrymore is introduced
twenty minutes into the film without any real preamble; he just appears at the
heroine’s bed side. It often seems Lugosi’s character has a line, only for the
film to cut away to someone else. It is rumored that the cut footage hinted at
an incestuous relationship between Count Mora and his daughter, but the film’s
wonderful commentary (by Steve Jones and Kim Newman) seems to indicate that it
was mostly comedic in nature.
My personal theory is that Browning was remaking not one, but
two movies of his: London After Midnight and
Dracula. The reveal at the end is
taken from London After Midnight, but
a lot of the imagery and characters are taken directly from the 1931 version of
Dracula:
1)Bela
Lugosi.
Even though he’s credited as Count Mora, Lugosi for the most part
reprises his role of Dracula for this film, to the point that he even dons the
same costume. The major difference being that Count Mora remains an unseen presence for most of the film; Lugosi’s role
can be described as being more of an extended cameo than a major role. He
appears every now and then to do something spooky, but then disappears while
all the principals walk through the scenery. Mark of the Vampire plays greatly to Lugosi’s strengths as an
actor; Lugosi never learned to speak English well and often stumbled through
his lines, but he had a great screen presence. His lack of dialogue and limited screen time actually add an aura of mystery surrounding his character that was completely lacking in Dracula. The first twenty minutes of Dracula are memorable, mainly because it
exploits Lugosi physicality to great effect, but it goes downhill once he is
called upon to recite dialogue while enclosed on a small set.
2)The
Wise Professor.
Dracula had Edward Van Sloan as Van Helsing, while Mark of the Vampire has Lionel Barrymore
as Professor Zelen. They both serve basically the same function: convince the
authorities that vampires are real and warn the heroine about the great danger
she is in. Edward Van Sloan is extremely
stiff as Van Helsing, though it actually works given that Van Helsing is very humorless and obsessive in his quest to stop Dracula, but Lionel Barrymore is an absolute delight as Professor
Zelen, practically stealing every scene he is with his very energetic and often
humorous performance. What’s amazing is that in 1935 Lionel Barrymore was
an A-list actor, considered to be one of the best amongst his peers, yet here
he is in a B horror movie giving it his all.
Most actors often looked down on horror films and went through the
motions, but Barrymore genuinely seems to be enjoying himself. Barrymore gives Mark of the Vampire the spark that was
desperately lacking in Dracula.
3)The
Bland Leading Man:
This was a common
trope in most early 30s horror films, the boring love interest to the more interesting heroine. At Universal Studios, this thankless role often went to
David Manners, who often did his best not to get in the way of the proceedings.
In Mark
of the Vampire the thankless role of Fedor is given to Henry Wadsworth, who
maybe the most worthless character in horror history. How worthless is Fedor?
He’s the only character (other than the maid and Von Zinden) that isn’t in on
the vampire hoax. Apparently, Professor Zelen and company were afraid that
Fedor might mess up their scheme, so they decided it would be best not to
tell him. He is completely irrelevant to the plot. As dull as Jonathan Harker was in Dracula, at least he served some
function to the overall story; Fedor just plods through the scenery with a
baffled look on his face. Dracula has
the “love conquers all” ending, in which it is implied that Jonathan’s love for
Mina helps bring her back from Dracula’s spell, whereas Mark of the Vampire has Irena apologize to Fedor for not letting
him in on the ruse.
It often feels like Browning and company
are sending up the worthless male lead by assigning him the traits that you
would typically find in the heroine: There’s one scene in which he recounts to
Irena and company how he fainted while walking past Count Mora’s castle and the
awoke to find two bite marks on his neck.
It is my opinion that Mark
of the Vampire is a vastly superior film to Dracula, especially on a technical level. Dracula, especially the LONG middle section, often feels like a
photographed stage play; the camera remains stationary while the actors enter
the set, say their lines, and exit. Out of all the Universal Monster films from
the 30s, Dracula is the hardest to
sit through, largely due to its sluggish pace.
Despite the fact that there’s a vampire on the loose, it never feels
like anything is truly at stake. The
characters stand around and talk, talk, talk, but they don’t take any course of
action. It isn’t until the last ten
minutes that the filmmakers decide to notch up the urgency level
by having Dracula kidnap Mina, forcing Jonathan and Van Helsing to leave the
confines of the sitting room to rescue her.
Mark of the Vampire has a far more cinematic feel to it: in the opening scene we are treated to a tracking shot of an old wash lady walking through a cemetery with a basket, getting startled by a bat, dropping her basket, and running away. Dracula consists largely of long shots with practically every cast member in frame, occasionally cutting to a close up; Mark of the Vampire is more heavily reliant upon editing, often cross cutting between two (sometimes three) events happening at the same time. As the film progresses, the pacing of the films picks up and then slows down again once Von Zinden is hypnotized into re-enacting his murder of Sir Karyall.
The biggest flaw of Dracula, is
the count loses most of his menace once he leaves the confines of his
Transylvania castle. The first twenty minutes of the film are wonderful; the
filmmakers successfully build up a sense of dread and danger just by the
reaction of the villagers faces when Renfield announce he’s going to Dracula’s
castle. The villagers urge Renfield not
to go, but when he is adamant that he must. A kindly old lady gives him her
cross for protection. This is a wonderful build up to the character of Dracula
and the audience is treated to an eerie scene in which Dracula and his brides
are seen rising from their graves. Again, Lugosi’s performance is best served
in a stylized setting, once you take him out of the context of an old dark castle
and put him in the middle of a nicely furnished sitting room, it drains away
the menace. It certainly doesn't help that a few shots are framed to make it
seem that Dracula is shorter than the protagonists.
Mark of
the Vampire works largely because Count Mora remains an unseen presence
throughout most of the film and usually has his daughter Luna do all of his
dirty work. We sense he possesses great powers, but never actually see him do
anything, which helps retain his mysterious aura. There’s a sense that
Count Mora is always one step ahead of the protagonists, hence it is a letdown
when it is revealed that he and Luna are fictional ploys used to capture a
murderer.
Mark of the Vampire also improves upon Dracula in building up
suspense; the urgency increases with each successive act. The characters do
stand around and talk, but at least there are actual scenes of them
investigating the area, trying to locate Count Mora and his cronies.
As much as I have nitpicked on both Scooby Doo, Where Are You and Mark of the Vampire for their cop out endings, part of their charm is the fact that both programs provide such simple solutions to seemingly complex scenarios. There's a scene in Mark of the Vampire in the Inspector (Lionel Atwill) intones, "We all thought our vampire scheme was so simple, so certain of success."
It has been theorized that Mark of the Vampire is actual a parody of horror conventions of the time, this isn't evident the first time around, but on multiple viewings (once you know the twist ending) the humor starts to emerge. There's a sense that the characters are having fun at the expense of the poor Von Zinden; they play pranks on him and tell him all sorts of crazy stories in hopes that it will make him sweat. Plus, the film ends on a joke; Lugosi (doing a nice send up of himself) looks in the mirror and says, "I was greater than any vampire." Then a stagehand tells him to shut up and help him pack. Whether you want to believe this theory or not, Mark of the Vampire, despite its plot holes or because of them, is a rather remarkably entertaining film from the golden age of horror films.
Mark of the Vampire Credits Cast: Lionel Barrymore (Professer Zelen), Elizabeth Allen (Irena Borotyn), Lionel Atwill (Inspector Neumann), Bela Lugosi (Count Mora), Carroll Borland (Luna), Jean Hersholt (Baron Otto Von Zinden), Henry Wadsworth (Fedor Vincente), Donald Meek (Dr. J Doskil), Holmes Herbert (Sir Karell Borotyn), Leila Bennett (Maria), Jessie Ralph (Midwife), Ivan F. Simpson (Jan), Michael Visaroff (Innkeeper). Director: Tod Browning Writers: Guy Endore, Bernard Schubert, John L. Balderston Running Time: 61 minutes
