Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Bit

       Alright, so not a lot of history behind this, which, again, good news for me. Director Brad Michael Elmore, after directing two horror films, decided to make a film with a transgender protagonist played by a transgender lead, combining it with an idea of "Jem and the Holograms" meets the Lost Boys. Elmore felt that a lower budget horror movie could be a good avenue to introduce a trans lead such as this. Said lead, Nicole Maines, got famous for fighting for her right to go to the bathroom of her gender identity. She had a lot of input into the role. The film was released to relatively postive reviews in 2019 at the LGBTQ+ themed Inside Out in Toronto. 

     So, the film begins with the ending of another film. In this case, introducing one of the main foci of the film, an intersectional lesbian vampire group led by Duke (Diana Hopper), consisting of Izzy (Zolee Griggs), Frog (Char Diaz) and Roya (Friday Chamberlain) , who confront one of their own (Julia Voth), after she makes a man a vampire, verboten in their clique. Meanwhile, Laurel (Nicole Maines) is a young trans woman from Oregon who moves in with his brother Mark (James Paxton), and she soon crosses pathes with this gang. Hijinks ensue. 

      Well, the main thing I enjoyed about the film was the representation. Not just the trans representation (though that obviously appeals to me as a trans woman), but the representation of race, sexuality and gender was especially fantastic. It was very much a film that doesn't necessarily ignore these issues, but also doesn't obsess over them. The characters are their identities, but they're also fleshed out and sympathetic. I liked that the film didn't make a big deal out of Laurel's gender identity, but it's obviously still affects her and her outlook. I liked that it also examines power dynamics in a very nuanced way, showing that Duke's misandrist perspective, while understandable, can just as easily be turned against her (which it is.)

     Not much bad about this film. I felt parts could've been explored more deeper, like Laurel's journey as a trans woman, the backstory of the rest of the gang, and more of the characters interacting and having their misadventures. Not to say there isn't any of that, but a little more could've been explored. Then again, the fact that my main criticism is that a movie doesn't have enough, it's probably a good thing.

   So, yeah, really loved this movie. Already inclined towards it as a trans horror fan, but it definitely exceeded expectations.Definitely recommend to horror fans, trans people, both and even neither. It's definitely been a highlight of the year.

   So close to finishing this on time. Well, I suppose election weekend is hard to avoid. Anyway, regardless of how this election turns out, as always I want to thank everyone for reading these, and hopefully, we get to the next October alive. Please check out my rewatch of the recently departed Venture Bros. coming up this month.

Summer of Terror- The Universal Monsters: Dracula (Spanish)

     Not too much history on this one. In the early days of sound, many were skeptical of audience expectations and the limitations of the technology, especially when it came to dubbing in other languages. Thus, many films had a completely separate version filmed in another language (usually Spanish,  French, German, and Swedish), with different native speaking actors, but which usually had the same sets and wardrobes than their English counterparts. Aside from that,the films were actually given a little more license and laxer restriction by the main studios to just improvise with their material. Given Latin America was a large market for American movies, Spanish language versions became the main examples of this. Such was the case here. The Spanish version of Dracula was filmed on the sets at night after Tod Browning concluded filming during the daytime. The director, George Melford, didn't speak or understand Spanish, so his co-director Enrique Tovar Ávalos was the main interpreter. The film was done on a lower budget, but the production ran much smoother than its English counterpart, completing a few days before the latter. The Spanish version is more than 30 minutes longer, mainly because Melford didn't cut as much of the film, and censorship wouldn't be a big issue in the countries it was released in. The film is also more explicit in terms of violence and sexuality because of that. However, much like other productions of this nature (which eventually lead to the discontinuing of the practice), the actors were from different parts of the world. For instance, Dracula was played by Spanish actor Carlos Villarías, while Eva (Mina) was played by Mexican Lupita Tovar (notably a centenarian who lived to 106 and the star of one of Mexico's first sound films.) The result was a mismatch of differing accents and dialects. Of the actors, only Villarias was allowed to see rushes of concurrent English version, so that his performance could emulate Lugosi's. The film was unknown and incomplete until the 1990's, where it had resurgence on home video.
    No real need for a synopsis here, since it's the same story.
    The longer length of this film definitely improves a lot of it. A lot of the scenes feel a lot more complete, there is a lot more development given to the characters and to the titular character, who does feel like more of a menace disrupting the lives of these people. The more explicit nature of the film helps increase the horror of it,  with more explicit and definite biting and death scenes (especially at the end.) It's much more of a satisfying watch. Spanish actor Pablo Álvarez Rubio does a much more intimidating and interesting Renfield than Dwight Frye. Big question: is Carlos Villarías better than Bela Lugosi? Well.... he's certainly different to some extent. Villarías is a lot more emotional and feral than Lugosi, having adverse, stronger reactions and emotions. That doesn't necessarily make the performance better, but it does provide an interesting contrast between the two. Lugosi plays Dracula with more finasse and menace, while Villarías has a lot more energy and viciousness to his performance. They're different, but one isn't really better than the other.
     While the extended length is generally a good thing, part of the film does drag a little, since it feels a lot slower in the middle. It's not too grating, but it definitely has a lot slower pace. Maybe to build the horror, but it was hard to keep interest until the climax and ending happened. Also, like the English version, the Spanish version just ends. It doesn't really have a satisfying ending, just kind of stops before the conclusion can come through.
      I wouldn't say this was better than the English version, but it definitely feels a lot more of a complete film. A lot less editing, and a lot more focus on developing the characters and story. It's definitely an interesting watch, especially if you see the Bela Lugosi version first to compare and contrast.
     Next up, we're looking at one of the most iconic films ever made: Frankenstein.

Summer of Terror- Universal Monsters: Dracula

     Bram Stoker's 1897 vampire novel, based on folklore of Eastern European vampires and the infamy of Vlad Tepes (aka Vlad the Impaler, aka Vlad Dracula or "Son of the Dragon") was already adapted into a German film in 1922: FW Murnau's Nosferatu . However, that adaptation was unauthorized and Stoker's widow Florence sued to have all copies destroyed (which was a failure). The origins of this film lie instead in a 1924 English stage play adaptation by Irish playwright Hamilton Deane that was approved by the Stoker estate. This stage play would be revised by John L. Balderston for Broadway in 1927, starring Bela Lugosi in the title role. Lugosi, a one-time bit player in the Hungarian National Theatre, had appeared in German silent films after his exile from Hungary in 1919 (for organizing an actor's union following the failed 1919 communist revolution), before immigrating to the United States in 1920, and became a stage actor. This would be Lugosi's first major English speaking role. Carl Laemmle, Jr., a producer under his father at Universal, saw Stoker's novel as a potential historical tragic epic in the vein of Hunchback and Phantom and bought the rights to Stoker's novel as well as the stageplay. The writers used the stage play as the basis, with some inspiration from Nosferatu. Laemmle was reluctant to cast Lugosi, despite his good reviews in the play, looking instead to actors like Paul Muni, before Lugosi lobbied heavily to reprise his role. Also reprising his role from the play was Edward van Sloan as Van Helsing, the effective hero of the story. Directing the film was Tod Browning, a former Vaudville actor who directed several Lon Chaney movies during the silent era (including the vampire picture London After Midnight, which would've been covered, had the film not been lost). Browning initially envisioned the titular character as largely unseen figure played by a relative unknown, but the studio overrode it. By most accounts, Browning delegated much of the directing cinematographer Karl Freund (who was most notable for his cinematography on Fritz Lang's Metropolis), effectively making the latter co-director. The film was shot on the Universal lot with the sets being reused for a Spanish language version being made at the same time. While there were fears that a straight forward supernatural horror movie may not do well, it was an resounding success, though for a 1936 reissue, some scenes, including an epilogue by Van Helsing were cut, and subsequently lost. The film would be considered a seminal film in the development of the Universal monsters and the horror genre in general.

     Renfield (Dwight Frye) is an English Solicitor on business in Transylvania in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He is visiting the castle of Count Dracula (Bela Lugosi), but is warned of his proclivity for vampirism by some of the residents. Sure enough, Dracula brainwashes and enslaves Renfield to take him in a coffin back to England. There, Dracula steadily begins a killing spree, while getting the attention of Mina (Helen Chandler), her fiance John Harker (David Manners), and her friend Lucy (Frances Dade). While Dracula terrorizes them, Mina's father Dr. Seward (Herbert Bunston) and Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan), investigate Renfield's vampirism, which brings them into conflict with the count.

    The definite highlight of this film is Bela Lugosi. He exudes a quiet menace to him, being dignified as an Eastern European count but also being incredibly creepy and threatening when need be. He doesn't talk much during the film, so a lot of his performance is conveyed through his motion, especially as he attacks or threatens people around him. It is a stellar performance. Surprisingly, given how it's saturated in pop culture, Lugosi's accent isn't all that thick in the film. It sounds almost English, with some slight indications Dwight Frye's Renfield (taking the role Harker had in the book) is also a joy to watch, showing the opposite with his psychaotic mannerisms and insane ramblings. The film had exquisite set design, and especially good use of shadows and lighting, tying of course to the other two films covered before. It truly enhances the terror of it, especially the lack of a soundtrack (which was apparently more of a cost saving measure, but makes a lot of the film's main set pieces work well).

    The film is surprisingly short, at only 71 minutes. I can tell a lot was probably cut because of censorship, particularly during the Hays Code era. There are some scenes that abruptly end or cut in the middle. The ending is the biggest example, where the aforementioned epilogue is not there and the film just ends on the characters climbing a set of stairs. While this sometimes enhances the horror, it also makes parts of this film confusing. Another, smaller complaint is that the effects haven't aged well. Especially the bats and the clear use of the fog machine.

    This was surprisingly effective, even today. It's not "scary" in a traditional sense, but the way the film uses subtle acting and editing to convey its scares was definitely an influence on modern day horror movies. It's an interesting historical film, and definitely should be sought out for that, and just as an entertaining, well-made film in its own right.

    Apologies for the lateness of this. I had a breakdown a few days ago, and couldn't muster the energy to do much writing. As such, this Summer of Terror will be a lot more erratic and spread out. I might not finish until September, but we'll see. Anyway, next time, after someone suggested it, we'll take a look at the briefly mentioned Spanish language version also produced by Universal.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Martin

   In honor of the late George A. Romero, I'm going to review four of his films for the next few entries. However, except for the final one, I'm going to focus on some of his non-Zombie film, to show some underappreciated parts of his filmography. We start with his own favorite of the films he made, Martin.     

    After Night of the Living Dead, George A. Romero had trouble following up on its success. He had attempted a romantic comedy immediately after, There Will Always Be Vanilla (which Romero considered his worst, and is not well-regarded today) in 1971. Later, in 1973, he returned to horror with Season of the Witch (not to be confused with the Halloween sequel), which is also not-well regarded, and science-fiction horror The Crazies, which has come to be seen as a cult classic, neither of which was successful. By 1977, he was in very serious debt. However, he refused to declare bankruptcy, because he didn't want to dishonor those who had stood by him. Impressed, friend and investor Richard Rubinstein joined forces to help Romero get out of  debt, forming the production company "Laurel Entertainment". This was their first effort in that company. Filmed, like his previous films, in the Pittsburgh area, it stars many associates of Romero in supporting roles, including his future wife Christine Forrest. The script changed from a literal vampire trying to survive the modern day to someone who may or may not be a vampire struggling with urges, after John Amplas was hired. Tom Savini, a friend of Romero, not only did the effects for this film, but also did the stunts and even plays a minor role in the film. This would start the very fruitful collaboration between the two over the years. Originally 2 hours and 45 minutes, it eventually cut down to an hour and 35 for wide release. The 165 minute cut has been lost to history. Moderately successful ($100,000 made on a $80,000 dollar budget), Romero would only get out of debt later on, when he returned to the zombie genre with Dawn of the Dead, with Rubinstein's help.

     The film opens with the title character (John Amplas) on a train, sneaking into a woman's room, and very viscerally attacking her when she emerges from her bathroom, injecting her with a strange substance. After a very graphic and very harrowing struggle between the woman and Martin, the substance is revealed to be a sedative, and she is knocked unconscious. Martin then uses a switchblade to cut her skin and suck her blood. He arrives in Pittsburgh to his granduncle Cuda (Lincoln Maazel), who is taking care of him after the death of his parents. However, Cuda himself believes that he is actually an 80-year old vampire, and tries to restrain him, using seemingly traditional methods. However, Martin dismisses these as mere fiction. Martin also meets his cousin Christina (Christine... Forrest), who is more sympathetic and concerned that Cuda is ignoring Martin's illness in favor of him being a literal vampire. As Martin works in Cuda's shop, he has various interactions with people in his new neighborhood, including Abbie Santini (Elyane Nadeau), whom he grows close to. However, even as he maintains a low-key persona, his urges continue to rise, and with those, fantasies that pop up, which warp his mind. Soon, those fantasies may consume him.

     The best film I can compare this to is a film I watched recently, Attack the Block, which actually came out in 2011 (and stars a pre-Star Wars John Boyega). Both films are low-budgets genre pieces, that are able to use great filmmaking techniques and effects to hid their low budget origins. This film is very rugged and grainy, but is able to make up for it, by utilizing not only good effects, but good editing, inserting sometimes gothic scenery into the proceedings to help create the feel of this character's mindset. The film can be seen as something of a retroactive deconstruction of the whole "loner is secretly a supernatural creature" trope seen in modern fiction like Twilight. Martin is very much how that character comes off in real life, and it is not pleasant at all. Romero spends a lot of time with Martin, showing his everyday life and how he interacts with the rest of the world, and he is seen as a low-key, shy sort of person. This only amplifies the horror of what he does, showing how he represses these feelings, and how horrific that release can be. He is not a sympathetic character at all, but Romero knows to show those scenes of him interacting in everyday life, in order to emphasize the horrific nature of his crimes and his deluded fantasies. It's all in the tagline on the film's poster "He Could Be the Boy Next Door". Despite being a horrible psychopath, he can show the fascade of normal. Martin is by no-means the only well-developed character. Each characters is very well-defined. Cuda in particular, may seem harsh in his treatment of Martin, but after seeing Martin's crimes, you can see that Cuda's fears are well-founded. Chrstina is the only really sympathetic character, but even she has some flaws down the road. The film has good effects (much like the last film I covered, which was also Tom Savini), and it makes good use of its setting. The sort of urban decay that is happening in the neighborhood is not emphasized, but you can see it all over, and it provides a interesting setting to contrast with the gothic nature of Martin's fantasies. Another deconstruction is the sort of religious resolution that was popular with films like The Exorcist. While the color portions aren't bad, the black-and-white portions were especially well-done, and I would like to see the extended version, which was entirely in black-and-white.

    I'll admit, some scenes in this were difficult to watch, because of their nature. I won't go into it, but there are very disturbing scenes in this, and I did feel uncomfortable watching it. It didn't offend me, because those scenes were obviously framed to be horrific and uncomfortable in the worst way, but it did make me feel quesy. This is just a warning to anyone who is interested: there are some scenes that are disturbing, and I would exercise caution while watching it. Otherwise, my main complaint would be length. It was cut down extensively, and many parts feel that way. There is a heavy narration element, which explains the character's feelings instead of showing them, and that sort of ruins the film. I feel the feelings he has or actions that happened were shown in the longer cut. The ending also feels a little abrupt, like there was meant to be more to it, but they just simply ended it there, with no reactions. Sometimes that works, but it also can feel curt and unneeded.

   Like I said, this film is disturbing in some scenes, and if you want to see it, my big warning is just exercise some caution and discretion while watching it, and know there are scenes you might want to skip over on whatever player you have it on. This film was not as good as Night of the Living Dead or Dawn of the Dead, but it is a solid late-70's horror film, with some excellent editing and narrative structure. It is grainy and b-movie like, but it uses that to create a truly chilling experience. If you liked the Living Dead, this could be a watch.Just, bear what I had to say in mind.

    Next time, we look at Romero and Stephen King's homage to EC horror comics, Creepshow.