The Wonderful World of Godzilla

My first exposure to Godzilla is directly linked to the family’s first VCR; in 1985 my dad finally broke down, drove the family to Sears, and bought a VCR for the THEN low price of $400. It served its function rather usefully and lasted well into the 90s.  Well, owning a VCR is pointless if you don’t have anything to watch on it, so the next day the old man drove to K-Mart (this was before the coming of Wal-Mart) and picked up a few video cassettes, one of which was Godzilla vs. the Sea Monster.  He bought if for two reasons:

1)      He was a fan of old monster films, especially 50s sci-fi like Them and The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms.

2)      It was a relatively cheap video. This provides some context; it was relative cheap for 1985.  When most videos by major labels (MGM, Fox, etc.) ran anywhere from $14.99 to $39.99, my bought these videos for the reasonably low price of $9.99. Of course, there was a reason for that: these videos were of extremely poor quality. The print of Godzilla vs. the Sea Monster (which I still have) was especially poor, as the pan and scanning was inept, while the picture and audio were subpar.

However, at the age of six I was not aware of such things and the video’s cover (a drawing of a Giant Dinosaur and Giant Lobster duking it out in the ocean) drew my interest and I anxiously inserted the video in the VCR, not knowing what to expect. I was completely enamored! It was like nothing I had ever seen before; not only was a giant dinosaur and lobster in it, but a giant Moth as well. On top of that, none of the characters voices matched their lips! It was a truly, life changing moment. I have been hooked ever since.  As the months progressed (and to my utter joy) my dad picked up even more Godzilla titles:  Ghidorah, the Three Headed Monster(the video title is spelled Ghidrah, but was later corrected for DVD) , Godzilla vs. Megalon, King Kong vs. Godzilla, as well as Mothra and Rodan. My favorite film out of the bunch was (and still is) Ghidorah, the Three Headed Monster, mainly because it had four very cool monsters in it, especially three headed space monster Ghidorah.  As soon I was given an allowance, I would save up my money and spend it on whatever Godzilla film was available. This was during the time when owning the movie was enough; nowadays people tend to be disappointed if the DVD isn’t loaded with special features.  How many times are you going to watch a making of featurette anyways?

Coincidentally, the local station channel 18 (or Super 18) would often air Godzilla movies on Saturday afternoon (as opposed to infomercials). I would often to check the local listings to see if a Godzilla movie was playing and if there was I would drop everything I was doing, fire up the VCR, and watch the latest Godzilla masterpiece. I recorded not one, but two Godzilla films on the very same VHS tape: Godzilla vs. The Monster Zero (aka: Invasion of the Astro Monster) and The Terror of MechaGodzilla.  I watched these films over and over again that I finally wore out the VHS cassette. That’s how much I loved these films!

The Lincoln Elementary School library actually had a book about Godzilla (as well as other famous screen monsters) that I would check out on a repeated basis. It may have been my favorite book at the age of six.  There is a photo in the book that stills stands out in my mind - special effects maestro, Eiji Tsuburaya, directing the actor (Haruo Nakajima) in the Godzilla costume. The book itself was more or less about this history of Godzilla (up until 1985) and was filled with black and white photos.

The most surprising thing about Godzilla is just how well the whole “actor in the suit” works. The experience I have with Godzilla films is that at first glance the suit elicits a few laughs, but as the film progresses, the audience starts to think of Godzilla as less as “an actor in the suit” and more as an actual character in the movie. The same applies to the original King Kong, the special effect is crude, but you eventually learn to accept Kong as a character.  There have been many CGI spectacles of the last decades, but most them have been forgotten, whereas Godzilla is just as popular now, if not more so, than he was nearly sixty years ago when he made his screen debut. What make Godzilla so unique is the way he has evolved throughout the course of the decade; in the 50s he was a physical manifestation of the atomic bomb, in the 60s he went from being a unintentional villain to a defender of the planet Earth, and by the 70s he had mellowed to the point that he became a beloved figure amongst the people of earth. Godzilla went through many face lifts and personality changes, but the one consistent was that he was an unstoppable force of nature and was not something to trifle with. It didn’t matter what obstacles were thrown his way, be they giant cockroaches, MechaGodzillas, or literally a giant walking pile of shit, because at the end of the day Godzilla would be the triumphant one. These villains would give him their best shot, but it was never good enough.  Godzilla is on par with Doctor Who in that he has been given many face lifts and personality changes, yet there are enough consistencies in the character to believe that one is the continuation of the other.

Many Godzilla fans tend to look down at the “kid friendly” Godzilla films of the late 1960s and 1970s, because they view it as a complete bastardization of the character. However, the “serious” Godzilla and the “kid friendly” Godzilla are not at odds as most fans would have you believe. In the original Godzilla was not only a physical manifestation of the nuclear bomb, but a victim of mankind’s reckless ambition as well. He wasn’t so much a villain as he was a lost soul doomed to wander the Earth. Unfortunately, he is extremely big and tends to level cities while doing his wandering. This point is apparent in Mothra vs. Godzilla where Godzilla’s destruction is depicted as being more incidental than willful; at one point in the film he stumbles on a cityscape and knocks over a tower in the process. In the later films of the sixties, Godzilla is not as big of a threat to mankind, but he’s not necessarily its ally either. He’s not so much as protecting mankind as he is defending his own territory from intruders. Often, like in Son of Godzilla, he is completely indifferent to the plight of the human protagonists and if he does save them, it is usually in an indirect manner.  In Godzilla vs. the Sea Monster, he proves as much a threat to the heroes as he does a savior; he destroys the giant lobster Ebirah and the villain’s base, but he nearly endangers the heroes escape from the island when he tries to engage Mothra in a battle. Luckily for the heroes (who are being carried by Mothra in a basket) Mothra flies by Godzilla unscathed and delivers them to safety.  If Godzilla chooses to team up with mankind, then it’s usually because it’s in his best interest to do so, not because he’s a benevolent savior.

The other complaint is how the later films became infected with camp humor, for instance in Invasion of the Astro Monster, Godzilla does a little jig after defeating Ghidorah on Planet X. Or most famously, he uses his radioactive breath as a rocket and takes off flying so he can catch the fleeing Hedorah in Godzilla vs. Hedorah. They claim these kinds of actions are out of character for Godzilla.  This certainly applies to the Godzilla of the 50s. If there was a scene in the original Godzilla in which he stopped his rampaging and proceeded to do a jig, it would definitely lead to a lot of head scratching from the audience. 

However, these silly moments are definitely within the spirit of the Toho films produced in the sixties and seventies. The original Godzilla is grounded in reality, its set in the real world…OUR WORLD…where the threat of nuclear war is very much a reality. It has a very stark, often documentary look to it, especially the scenes that show the aftermath of Godzilla’s attack on Tokyo, these are scenes that could have easily been lifted out of newsreel footage of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Godzilla’s rampage is depicted in a very realistic, uncompromising manner; we see countless civilians killed onscreen. In one memorable moment, we are shown a shot of a young mother cradling her two children and comforting them by saying, “Soon we’ll be reunited with dad,” implying that their father was a victim of World War II. The original Godzilla was made just nine years after the events of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so it is given that the citizens of Japan both in real life and the movies were still haunted by the bombings and the war in general. There’s a brief scene in a subway where a computer groans about having to take refuge in a shelter again, referencing America’s firebombing of Japan towards the end of the war.

The original Godzilla is ingrained in reality, whereas the countless sequels are fantasies set in a world where the appearance of a giant monster is an everyday occurrence, rather than a world shattering event.  The original Godzilla had no clear cut villain, while in the sequels the antagonists wear their villainy on their sleeves. In Invasion of the Astro Monster, we know the inhabitants of Planet X are evil, thanks to a not so subtle shot of them laughing as astronauts Glenn and Fuji take off. In the original Godzilla we are shown countless civilian casualties as Godzilla rampages through the city; in the sequels no innocent civilian ever seems to get harmed.  The only onscreen deaths we are shown are the villains getting their come up pence.  In Ghidorah, the Three Headed Monster, Ghidorah starts an avalanche by shooting bolt of lightning from his mouth, which in turn crushes the car that happens to be carrying the film’s villains. In Mothra vs. Godzilla, the greedy Torahata is crushed to death by falling debris, caused Godzilla’s tail smashing against the hotel he happens to be staying in. The protagonists are either out of harm’s way, or they survive the ordeal with only a few scratches.

It is often claim that Godzilla’s foray into camp is what killed the original series; however, I think this can be more attributed to changing tides in cinema.  The 1970s saw the rise of the blockbuster and the multiplex, while many drive ins (Godzilla primary audience) were being closed down. Secondly, with the release of Jaws and then Star Wars, Americans (and world audiences) expected much more sophistication out of their special effects that the Godzilla films could never hope to offer.  The fact is that even if the Godzilla films of the seventies were played in a straight manner, they still didn’t stand a chance against the big budget juggernauts that were dominating the cinemas.  After the seventies, only two Godzilla film would be released in American theatrically, Godzilla 1985 and Godzilla 2000, the rest would be released direct to video. 

I think the best way to come to grips with the Godzilla series is by thinking of the first film as a standalone film and the other films, not as sequels, but as spin offs. This isn’t entirely off base, considering that Godzilla was killed off at the end of the original film. The second film, Godzilla Raids Again, was made to cash in on the success of the first film.  It introduced a new Godzilla, as well as Anguirus, who despite having a back covered in spikes was rather inefficient in battle.
It is the Godzilla in this film that would continue to wreak havoc on Japan (and New York in Destroy All Monsters) for the next forty years.

The five things this film have in common (other than Godzilla) is that they were directed by Ishiro Honda, who was easily the best director in the series.  Honda’s films are interesting, because they usually have an emotional center to them. As a kid, I often fast forwarded through the human scenes and went straight to the great monster brawls that were scattered throughout the film, but as an adult, I tend to find the human scenes more interesting than any of Godzilla’s antics.  A theme that emerges in Honda’s Godzilla films is mankind duty to one another; that mankind must overcome their petty squabbles and work towards building a more peaceful world. There is scene in Mothra vs. Godzilla, in which the three protagonists (reporter Ichiro, photographer Junko, and Professor Miura) are sent to Infant Island to persuade the habitants to let Mothra fight Godzilla. They are met with great hostility by the natives, who view Godzilla’s destruction of Japan as the will of God. The protagonists are about ready to call it quits, when Junko stops forward and pleads for the natives to change their mind:

Please listen, we all understand. But do not blame every one of us of what has happened. The monster is killing everyone. The good are being killed, as well as the evil. Are you going to let innocent men die alongside guilty men? You have no right to decide that, that right is sacred. My friends and I appeal to you with the utmost humility. Our people are unable to stop Godzilla. We truly like to help you, but we need your help first. Refuse us then, and everyone will die!

Then Ichiro chides in with:

Just as you distrust as, then we distrust others we well. What's wrong? We're all human. As humans we are responsible for each other, we're related. Refuse us then you'll abandon your brothers. We must learn to help each other. 

Despite its preaching, it’s a surprisingly effective scene, especially in the Japanese version where the acting is far more restrained, as opposed to the over-the-top dubbing in the American version. In Ghidorah, the Three Head Monster this theme gets extended to the monster as well, when Mothra tries to persuade Rodan and Godzilla to stop their petty fighting and join forces, so they can stop Ghidorah from destroying the Earth.  Godzilla and Rodan are reluctant at first, but eventually put aside their differences and fight Ghidorah.

Ishiro Honda’s films are always worth a look, because not only are they interesting thematically, but absolutely beautiful to look at. His Godzilla films of the 60s are filled with colorful sets, beautiful cinematography, and wonderfully detailed models, but most importantly you often cared about the characters that populated his films.  He’s probably the only Godzilla director that gave his characters little moments that endured them to the audience (e.g. Shindo and Naoko teasing each other at the dinner table). They don’t necessarily advance the storyline, but it helps make the characters more relatable to the audience.

The most surprising (and most overlooked) aspect of Godzilla films is the role women play in them; they are often the driving force in the story or played a pivotal role in the saving the world. My favorite “Godzilla” actress is Yuriko Hoshi, who played Junko in Mothra vs. Godzilla and the journalist Naoko in Ghidorah, the Three Headed Monster. The thing I like about her characters in both films is that despite getting involved in extraordinary circumstances, they always remain calm, even in the face of danger.  Junko is given a nice character arc from being a slightly inept assistant to being the voice of reason at the film’s most pivotal moment, and Hoshi sells this nicely by never overselling her role. It’s a nice restrained performance that is at odds with the goofy voice assigned to her character in the dubbed American version. In Ghidorah, the Three Headed Monster, Naoko proves to be a most competent journalist, who’s able to locate Princess Salno before her brother Shindo, who’s a detective. 

In Terror of MechaGodzilla, the story is driven by the cyborg Katsura, who is torn between her loyalty to her mad scientist dad (Dr. Mafune) and her love for marine biologist Ichinose, who offers her a world of love and hope. In the end, Katsura sacrifices herself for the greater good of humanity. Earlier, in the film it is revealed she died in a lab accident but was brought back to the life by the advanced technology of an alien race. Later in the film, she is killed again and is once again given life by the alien’s technology, but with a catch, they have placed MechaGodzilla’s controls inside Katsura’s body. In the end, while Ichinose is cradling her in his arms, assuring her that everything will be alright, she shoots herself with an alien gun, which severs the power to MechaGodzilla. Oddly, enough this pivotal scene was actually cut from the video release of Terror of MechaGodzilla. In this version, we see Ichinose comforting Katsura and then it abruptly cuts to Godzilla taking out MechaGodzilla.  This is a pivotal part of the film and Katsura’s character arc, yet the America distributors felt the film could do without it; hence it ends in a jarring, nonsensical manner.

My favorite female in the series is Tomoko in Godzilla vs. Gigan; it’s easily one of the worst films in the Godzilla series, but it’s worth seeing just for the interaction between Tomoko and the film’s protagonist Gengo, a comic book artist. Essentially, their relationship boils down to this: he’s the brains of the operation and she is the muscle. It is established early on that she has a black belt in karate and we get to see her use these skills throughout the course of the film, in one scene she beats the crap out of two guards who are about to kill a scientist they have taken prisoners. My favorite bit in the film is when Gengo and Tomoko are running up a flight of stairs; Gengo runs out of breath and collapses, saying, “I can’t go on.” Tomoko grabs him and then shames him by asking, “Are you a man?”  It’s certainly one of the more enjoyable aspects in this otherwise dreadful film.

Godzilla films are ridiculous, WONDERFULLY RIDICULOUS, pieces of cinema. They entertain on many different levels:  some people might laugh at the bad dubbing and the guy in the rubber suit, while others might enjoy the story that is being told and genuinely like the characters onscreen.  However, this most often misunderstood aspect of special effects is that, “they are supposed to be realistic.” The function of special effects is to advance the storyline and people may laugh at the “man in the subber suit” gimmick, but it has been effective enough to spawn a pop culture phenomenon that has lasted nearly sixty years.  The America remake of  Godzilla had superior effects, but is essentially just another mediocre summer blockbuster, indistinguishable from the rest, whereas the old Godzilla films are hard to forget.

Why a Remake of Jaws is Inevitable and How Hollywood Will Screw it Up!

Jaws is arguably the greatest summer blockbuster movie ever made, it's a well made action thriller with a memorable screen villain and, more importantly, characters that the audience genuinely cares about.  There's excellent an review of Jaws on the website Jabootu, which does the film more justice than I could ever hope to do. Check it out! It's fairly long, but a good read nonetheless.

Why It Will Be Remade?
Jaws has spawned three sequels and countless rip offs that it’s only a matter of time that light bulb goes off in some studio exec’s head and says, “Why not remake Jaws? We can make it so much better with today’s technology!” The last decade of cinema has been littered with remakes and reboots of popular movies that updating Jaws isn’t nearly as farfetched as it seems: Gus Van Sant took a stab at Psycho and failed, Peter Jackson gave King Kong the Tolkien treatment, and Tim Burton has “re-imagined” three popular stories:  Planet of the Apes, Alice in Wonderland, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. What’s to stop Hollywood from remaking Jaws?

How Hollywood Will Screw It Up!

-          Over reliance on CGI.

-          Amp up the body count.

-          Gratuitous nudity and explicit gore.

-          Making the cast younger and sexier!

The lead actor in Jaws is Roy Scheider, who not only is average looking, but middle aged as well. His character Chief Brody is a happily married to the loving Ellen Brody and the father of two boys. In short, he is completely lacking in sex appeal, something that would not fly in today’s world.  The whole happily married story line would be a turn off to the intended teenage audience, therefore the most logical step would be to make Chief Brody a young, sexy, and single man that is getting over a bad break up.  If Brody is a single man coping with a break up, then you have to provide him with a love interest that breaks though his icy exterior and helps him rediscover a purpose in life…..enter the sexy, but strong marine biologist Mary Hooper. In the original Jaws, the marine biologist was Matt Hooper played By Richard Dreyfuss, who like Roy Scheider is..gasp…AVERAGE LOOKING! Unacceptable! Switching Matt Hooper’s sex from male to female would not only provide Brody with a love interest, but being a marine biologist would justify her running around in a bikini for most of the film’s running time. Do the math:

“Sexy woman + ocean = Sexy woman in a revealing bikini.” 

Captain Quint would basically be the same, except he would be ruggedly handsome and have less of back story.  Who would be cast as the three leads?

Chief Brody – Channing Tatum.
He’s recently become big amongst the ladies and his expressionless face would be perfect for the lead role in action-horror film.

Mary Hooper- Jessica Biel.
She’s cornered the market on the strong and sexy woman, so why not? Plus she looks great in a bikini.

Captain Quint- Matthew McConaughey.
He was pretty convincing as a crazy sheriff in Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation... so why not a half crazed sea captain? 

If I’m not mistaken, the original Jaws has a total death count of FIVE! Five?! That’s not scary! Not only that, but most of the violence is implied rather than seen. The audience doesn't get a glimpse of the shark until an hour into the movie…again UNACCEPTABLE!  This was largely due to failures in the mechanical shark; forcing Spielberg to come up with different methods to show the shark was there (e.g., POV shots in the water, John William’s score, the yellow barrels at the film’s end.)
Today’s filmmakers don’t have to worry about such draw backs, thanks to CGI. Instead of waiting an hour to unveil the title villain, the filmmaker could show the Great White Shark right off the bat, thus doing away with any unwanted build up or suspense.  In the opening scene of the original Jaws the shark devours an attractive blonde woman that’s skinny dipping at night....BORING.....just imagine how scarier it would be if the shark devoured not one, but a whole a group of attractive skinny dipping blondes! Such a display of gratuitous nudity and explicit gore would have the audience at the edge of their seats! Whereas the deaths in the original Jaws served a function to the overall story, in the remake the bodies will pile up without anyone so much as batting an eye. There will be no scene of a grieving mother slapping the face of Chief Brody nor of the visibly shaken mayor sickened by the thought that he put his son in danger, instead there will be scenes of random, scantily clad tourists meeting gory ends followed by scenes of Chief Brody romancing the strong willed Mary Hooper.  The film would not only be a remake Jaws, but a remake of the Jaws rip off Spring Break Shark Attack as well.  It will be the ultimate cinematic desecration!

Invasion of the Saucer Men (1957)

If I had to choose my favorite decade overall for filmmaking, it would be the 1950s. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the films of the 50s were vastly superior to those of any other decade, it’s mainly due to the fact it was quite possibly the most eclectic time for cinema.  It was a decade in which the genres ranged from the big budget musicals to low budget science fiction films. It was a decade in which, out of panic, the studios devised all sorts of gimmicks to steal back their audience from the ever growing threat of television. If you want to know how filmmakers viewed television, watch any film from the 1950s and it’s never portrayed in a positive light. It was the first time that studios (primarily American International Pictures) started making films that pandered to a teenage audience; the mid 50s saw a boom of teenaged theme movies with titles like I Was a Teenage Werewolf and Teenage Caveman. What’s interesting is that despite their ridiculous titles, some of these films (Teenage Werewolf) are actually quite good; certainly a lot better than they have any right to be.  My favorite out of the bunch is the 1957 Invasion of the Saucer Men, because despite its silly title monsters and teenage sensibilities, it’s actually a far more interesting film than the filmmakers ever intended.

Invasion of the Saucer Men is the type of movie that gets absolutely destroyed by the film critics, because it usually gets lumped in with all the bad science fiction films of the 50s. For instance, Leonard Maltin in his video guide book gives the film one and a half stars, but never really explains why. After all, it’s a silly science fiction film, therefore no explaining is necessary. While Invasion of the Saucer Men is no classic, it’s certainly not as bad as most movie critics would have you believe, in fact it holds up fairly well to most sci-fi “classics” of the decade like The Day the Earth Stood Still and Forbidden Planet.  Both films are horribly overrated by the critics solely for the fact that they were made by prestigious studios (FOX and MGM), where as The Invasion of the Saucer Men was released by AIP, which specialized in schlock (entertaining schlock). 

Invasion of the Saucer Men has an interesting subplot that details the cover up of a UFO that the Air Force accidentally blew up. In the film, the Saucer Men land in a heavily wooded area and start scouting the area. The Air Force gets wind of it and drive down to investigate the saucer.  The men try to communicate with the saucer verbally, but when they get no reply, they come to the conclusion that it is empty and decide to enter by force.  Air Force engineers cut through the hull of craft, but in the process set off a fuse that causes the saucer to explode.   The local authorities hear the explosion and send a policeman to investigate. He is greeted by Lt. Wilkins, who tells the officer that one of their jets crashed and everything is under control.  The police officer accepts Wilkins story and drives away. The most interesting part of this subplot is that it is implied that this is not the first time that the Air Force has covered up a UFO crash. In the end, with the cover up a success, Lt. Wilkins and Col. Ambrose have the following exchange:

Ambrose: Makes you proud, doesn’t it?

Wilkins: What does colonel?

Ambrose: Being part of a show like this; protecting our country from alien invaders. Just think about it, only this special unit and the president of the United States will know what happened here tonight.

Wilkins: You mean you think we know what’s happened!

Ambrose: Well, of course we do!

Wilkins: Colonel! This top secret service is like scratching; once you get started it’s hard to stop.

Ambrose: What are you getting at lieutenant? SPIT IT OUT!

Wilkins: Well, did it ever occur to you colonel that there might be other units just like ours covering up other things?

This may seem like a standard science fiction plot, but it was basically unheard of the 1950s to portray the military in such an unflattering light; Colonel Ambrose is a pompous boob who elicits nothing but disgust from Lt. Wilkins.  Ambrose takes pride in defending the country from alien invaders, when in reality  all he did was botch a major operation (explode a flying saucer), while the real protagonists of the film, teenagers Johnny and Joan, are defeating the Saucer Men in another area of the woods.  

In a nice twist, it’s not only the Air Force that is covering up the Saucer Men’s existence, but the Saucer Men as well. While driving back from the local make out spot, teenagers Johnny and Joan accidentally hit a Saucer Man.  Johnny is afraid that he ran over a kid and gets out of his car to investigate, only to find the corpse of bulbous extra terrestrial lying underneath his fender.  Before Johnny has a chance to look at the Saucer Man, one of its hands detaches itself from its wrist, crawls over to a tire on Johnny’s car “Elvis,” sprouts needles from its fingertips and proceeds to stab the tire, causing it to deflate.  With his car out of commission, Johnny decides the best thing to do is call the police from a nearby telephone. While Johnny and Joan are away, the other Saucer Men come to collect the body of their compatriot and replace it with the body of would be conman, Joe Gruen, who has met an untimely end at the hands of the Saucer Men.  The police arrive at the scene before Johnny and believe that Joe is the victim of a hit and run accident. When Johnny arrives at the police station, he is unaware that they have found Joe’s body in place of the Saucer Man and is duped into signing a confession.  When he tries to persuade the police that he hit an extraterrestrial, they just ignore his pleas and chalk it up to him being a “mixed up teenager”.  

Johnny and Joan escape from the police department in hopes that they can find evidence to back up their story; they track down Joe’s roommate Art and hope to persuade him that they are telling the truth. Art is skeptical, but agrees to go along with them and is attacked by the Saucer Men for his effort.  When Johnny and Joan call the police for help  the police once again ignore them and tell them that the  hit and run charges have been dropped, because the autopsy revealed that Joe died of alcohol poisoning hours before the alleged accident.  It turns out that the Saucer Men’s main defense is injecting alcohol into their victims, Joe was already wasted when he ran into them, hence the alcohol poisoning, while Art survives the ordeal slightly tipsy.

The Saucer Men are probably the only screen villains (extraterrestrial that is) not hell bent on taking over the world, rather are part of a scouting mission that goes horribly awry. It’s not revealed what their mission is, but it is made apparent that they do not want their presence known; to extent that they are willing to frame a young couple who have seen too much.  They will do anything to ensure secrecy, include murdering the scheming Joe Gruen, who was planning to make millions off the dead Saucer Men before biting the dust himself.  The Saucer Men, however, have only vital weakness….THEY HATE LIGHT!  The meet their demise when Johnny and Joan gather up all their teenage friends and have them turn their headlights on the slowly advancing Saucer Men. The Saucer Men evaporate into thin air and the make out point is saved.

Invasion of the Saucer Men is one of the first (if not the first) science fiction films to have teenagers as its lead protagonists, prior to this most science fiction heroes were scientists, military men, or men in higher positions in life.  There was usually a science vs. military subplot prevalent throughout these films; the scientists wanted to understand and, if possible, communicate with the creature, whereas the military only wanted to destroy the damn thing.  The military usually came out on top in the end, when it was revealed that the creature had no desire to communicate and was bent on taking over the world/or destroying large cities. Invasion of the Saucer Men discards this subplot altogether, focusing more on Johnny and Joan’s attempts at getting the local authorities to believe their story about the Saucer Men, and when failing to do so, taking the matter into their own hands. This is a trope that would dominant science fiction/horror films for the next 50 years, but it’s interesting to see it first hand in a fairly obscure 50s sci-fi thriller.  Johnny and Joan are determined to fight these monsters, while the adults just stand around and sneer at them.  The police and Joan’s father perceive Johnny as a hoodlum, who is destined to wind up in prison, while crotchety old farmer Larkin threatens to blast them full of rock salt for trespassing on his property and getting his cows drunk. It could be argued that the real antagonists are the adults, because in the end, the Saucer Men really aren’t much of a threat and are defeated rather easily, whereas farmer Larkin is still out and about, ready to blast the next teenager that trespasses on his property.

I know what you must be thinking at this point:
This movie sounds absolutely ridiculous! Extra-terrestrial invaders that inject alcohol into their victims and are allergic to light! That sounds lame!

It would be lame, if the film was a straight horror film, but the filmmakers approach it in a very tongue in cheek manner.  It is rumored that it was initially supposed to be a straight out horror film, but when director Edward L. Cahn saw the Saucer Men costumes he decided it would be best to play for laughs. However, it must be said that Cahn (with the exception of the climax) does an excellent job of handling the creatures, often showing them in shadows or in close ups, but never allowing the viewer to get a good look at them. The scene in which Johnny hits the Saucer Men is especially effective, because the Saucer Man is briefly glimpsed in silhouette, giving the scene an appropriately eerie edge.  The humor is largely supplied by Joe , Art, and old man Larkin. The opening shot is of Larkin’s dilapidated house, punctuated by a flash of lightning, just then Art’s voiceover (he’s the narrator of the film) intones, “Spooky, huh?”  He then informs us that, “a plain, old farmer lives in this house, an easy going sort of guy.” Just then a car drives by and out comes old man Larkin brandishing a shot gun, grumbling, “I’ll get the law after them.”  We are then introduced to Joe and Art sitting in a diner; Joe, in a drunken stupor, asks a pretty waitress, “I wonder if you can tell me how to…..get to first base with you tonight.” The waitress walks away offended, Art gives Joe a dirty look, and Joe defends his actions with, “At least I tried!” It’s not pivotal to the plot, but it’s a scene that sets up the characters and their relationship with one another: Joe is always looking for an angle, while Art is fairly indifferent to everything. Joe is played by Frank Gorshin, who would later find fame as The Riddler on TV's Batman.

Even the relationship between Col. Ambrose and Lt. Wilkins is played for laughs. Ambrose is a pompous, humorless windbag who is suspicious of everyone, while Lt. Wilkins does his best to keep a straight face when listening to Ambrose ramble on and on. It’s pretty fitting that at the film’s end Wilkins can no longer keep himself in check and deflates Ambrose’s ego by hinting that there are other units out there covering up similar things.  The humor certainly helps gloss over the film’s shortcomings.

The most pleasant surprise about Invasion of the Saucer Men is its two leads Steve Terrell and Gloria Castillo; both are extremely likable and are believable as a young couple. It certainly helps that their characters Johnny and Joan are fairly intelligent people, as opposed to the personality free mannequins that usually dominate these types of films.  It’s to the film’s credit that these two characters often behave in a rational and believable manner, when Johnny runs over the Saucer Men, he calls the police.  When the police don’t believe him, he seeks out someone who might (Art). When Art is attacked by the Saucer Men, Johnny phones the police again and when they refuse to send help, he seeks out the aid of his friends. I especially like the character of Joan, because she actually plays a role in bringing down the Saucer Men, as opposed to being just a lovely decoration for the male audience to gawk at. Joan stands by Johnny’s side throughout the entire film and is as determined put an end to the Saucer Men as he is. The film could have easily followed the tired storyline of Joan being kidnapped and Johnny having to come to her rescue, but instead it’s Art that gets kidnapped, and Joan and Johnny come to his aid.  When Johnny goes to rustle up some friends, Joan is right there with him, getting the attention of the teenagers by running from car to car and explaining the situation in a calm, but urgent manner.

It’s interesting to note the role of women in low budget, 50’s science fiction, because they were often depicted as being brave, intelligent, and completely self sufficient.  While their A-movie counterparts were often given nothing to do, the women in these films often played a pivotal role in defeating the title monster, or in the case of Beverly Garland in It Conquered the World went out with a bang.  All one has to do is compare Alta from Forbidden Planet to Joan from Invasion of the Saucer Men.  In Forbidden Planet, a big budgeted MGM film, Alta’s (Anne Francis) sole function is to add sex appeal to the proceedings, otherwise her character is fairly useless, while in Invasion of the Saucer Men, Joan is willing to step into danger with Johnny, because she finds it preferable than waiting at home. She may not be the ass kicking heroine of today, but she’s certainly not the brainless sex kitten that became prevalent throughout the 60s, 70s, and 80s. 

Invasion of the Saucer Men was remade in 1965 as The Eye Creatures by hack filmmaker Larry Buchanan, whose other noteworthy credits include: The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald, Mars Needs Women, It’s Alive, and other AIP remakes.  The title creatures consist of actors wearing black leotards covered with plastic eyeballs, with a rubber eyeball mask to boot.  The Eye Creatures is so cheap and completely inept, that it makes the original look like a Steven Spielberg production by comparison. The star is Beach Movie hunk John Ashley, who unlike Steve Terrell, is completely bland in the lead role.  If The Eye Creatures is remembered at all, it’s for the fact that it became fodder for the boys at Mystery Science Theater 3000.

Credits:
Cast: Steve Terrell (Johnny Carter), Gloria Castillo (Joan Hayden), Frank Gorshin (Joe Gruen), Lynn Osborne (Art Burns), Raymond Hatton (Larkin), Russ Bender (Doctor), Douglas Henderson (Lt. Wilkins), Sam Buffington (Col. Ambrose).
Director: Edward L. Cahn.
Screenplay: Al Martin
based on the short story "The Cosmic Frame Up" By Paul W. Fairman.
69 min.

Scooby Doo, Where Are You/ Mark of the Vampire (1935)

AND I WOULD HAVE GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT TOO:

My reviews of
Scooby Doo, Where Are You

and Mark of the Vampire (1935) 


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 time the 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.

4)  The Heroine:  

     Irena is set up as being similar to Mina in Dracula: They both lose someone very close to them (Irena: her father, Mina: Her friend Lucy) and look to be the next victim of the vampire. There are even similar scenes in which both women try to convince their fiancés everything is OK by putting on a happy face, while being summoned by a vampire. There’s also an interaction with a house maid: Mina begs the housemaid to take down the wolfsbane, while Irena laughs when the housemaid starts to panic that she has taken down the bat thorne (both used to prevent the vampire from entering the heroine’s bedroom).  Oddly enough, Count Mora and Irena only have one scene together, and even then, they just exchange glances, while Sir Karyall (his double) tells her to go with Luna. However, our world is entirely turned upside down when it is revealed that not only is Irena NOT a victim, but she’s actually in on the plot to catch Von Zinden. In span of a few seconds, she goes from damsel in distress to hero. Granted, it’s Professor Zelen and the Inspector that capture Von Zinden in the act, but Irena is a pivotal part of their plan and had she faltered, it would have never worked.  Mina, on the other hand, is truly helpless in her predicament and is saved through the intervention of Van Helsing and Jonathan.

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