The Dracula Saga

[Andrés Verdú]

Indeed, Matt. I will just clarify - what I was actually trying to get at by my comment was my sadness that the kind of film that made Peter Cushing (and a great deal of other actors) internationally famous is looked down upon by certain circles within the "media and Arts world" (for want of a better term). I know that Mr Cushing strongly maintained that he would rather work in a film people actually wanted to see rather than something more "highbrow" that would only appeal to a select few, and I certainly agree with the sentiment. My grievance really lies with those within the establishment who failed to recognise and acknowledge Mr Cushing's talent more fully. I believe that had Peter Cushing not worked in "horror" films (or fantasy to use the term he preferred) he would most probably have received a knighthood and achieved something closer to the critical acclaim and artistic reputation of some of his contemporaries such as Laurence Olivier, John Gielgud, Ralph Richardson, and John Mills (who themselves were not above appearing in the odd "horror" film). On the other hand, the world would have lost many of the best performances in that genre of the second half of the 20th century, so perhaps the lack of an "official seal of approval" is the price to pay for an overall impressive body of work. So, in short, what I think is rather sad is the unfair prejudice attached to actors who worked making the kind of films we've been discussing. Anyway, I hope this clears things up. Take care everyone:

Warmest regards,

Andrés

[Matt Gemmell]

Ah ! Now we're in complete agreement.

The same website has also reviewed all of the films on the recent Icons Of Adventure Boxset. Three of them feature Christopher Lee and it's nice to see such positive comments from a so called trendy younger based site. It just goes to show that class lasts.
A Movie A Day: Quint on THE STRANGLERS OF BOMBAY (1960) Welcome your sons, great Kali. Look upon them with favor. -- Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

A Movie A Day: THE DEVIL-SHIP PIRATES (1964)If you try to interfere with our departure those girls will be hanged. -- Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

A Movie A Day: PIRATES OF BLOOD RIVER (1962) For me? An island like this. Peaceful. Full of golden women and no men. -- Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

A Movie A Day: Quint on TERROR OF THE TONGS (1961) The Red Dragon knows only one reward for failure, Mr. Harcourt. -- Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

[Jill Clark]

The kind of discrimination that Juan is discussing above is quite prevalent to all literature, and it's because of the literary canons--critics don't take science fiction, Gothic, or other subgenres like mystery seriously, anymore than they take subgenres like romance very seriously. It goes back to Aristotle's Poetics, where Aristotle defined low and high art; low art meant lyric poetry and comedy in his definitions, while high art including tragic drama and epic poetry. Those old designations carried over and were twisted through the canons of the Catholic church, which controlled most educational media; it wasn't just the vulgate of the Bible or other church literature that they dominated. The whole university research system comes from the "Canons," so that the designations for what was considered "serious" art were also handed down through the subsequent generations. Melodramas get a bad rap as a result--the novel as a form took the place of epic poetry as the serious media of literary study.

In addition, I noticed in some earlier discussions the controversies concerning the relationship between Henry Irving and Stoker--man, did Stoker ever hate his wife? Check out the Norton edition of Dracula; when I first picked it up, I thought it was a picture of Mr. Lee on the cover, and eagerly looked for the caption, only to find it was Henry Irving. My goodness, what a resemblance! Even the cartoons of Irving bear a striking resemblance to Mr. Lee (or perhaps I should say that Mr. Lee bears a striking resemblance to Irving?)!

[Juan Aneiros]

I do not like much this genre other that a few good movies that come up every now an again. The Others, The Devil's Backbone, etc. These are movies where actors from other genres come in to do, once in a blue moon.

But I do know that you guys know much more than me, so can anyone name me 5 international stars alive today, who are associated with the genre, excluding Chritstopher Lee who stoped being "type cast" since 1973?

[Jill Clark]

Hmm, that is a challenge, but I'll give it a shot.

1. Jamie Leigh Curtis: star of Halloween and crossed over to mainstream drama, comedy, and other genres.

2. Janet Leigh: star of Psycho, and also Jamie's famous mother.

3. Robert Englund: star of A Nightmare on Elm Street. I think he was pretty much typecast in that role, but I believe the one hit wonder did hit the international lists.

4. Tippi Hedren: star of The Birds; I think she's still alive.

5. Sir Anthony Hopkins: star of Silence of the Lambs, and my personal favorite, after Mr. Lee.

7. Angus Scrimm: another one typecast in one role, in Phantasm. I met him at a Fangoria convention once. I don't know if one could consider him an international star, though...

8. Drew Barrymore: became the first victim and food for the worms in Scream; also made good for 9. Courtney Cox, 10. David Arquette, and 11. Neve Campbell.

12. Billy Petersen: the star of CSI, aka Gil Grissham, got his start in Manhunter, the changed title for Red Dragon, the first of the Hannibal Lector chronicles. Billy's haunting performance as perfectionist Will Graham paved the way for his quirky character on CSI.

I'm sure I'll think of some more. Hazel Court just passed away this year...

[Juan Aneiros]

I did not construct the question correctly. Stereotyped, label on the back, they names pops up and boom, international horror star. Font cover of Fangoria, horror conventions, the full works.

Robert Englund I think, not sure about the others.

But thanks for the answer. I would like to hear some more.

[Matt Gemmell]

Originally Posted by Juan Aneiros

I did not construct the question correctly. Stereotyped, label on the back, they names pops up and boom, international horror star. Font cover of Fangoria, horror conventions, the full works.

The simple answer to that one Juan is that there is no one. Christopher Lee is the last of that golden age. Lugosi, Karloff, Price, Cushing, Carradine.
The days of actors being purely associated with a type of genre are gone except for the independent, low budget world.

The big difference about Mr Lee is that he did break the typecasting mould.
As you know I love his horror films but nothing gave me greater satisfaction than when he appeared to a whole new generation in LOTR & Star Wars. I felt like shouting " I told you so ! "

I agree that Jamie Lee & Englund made their names with horror but whilst Jamie went on to greater things including an Oscar the same can not be said for Englund. Not that that's a bad thing but I suppose he's the closest thing we have to a modern day horror icon.

It's not horror but examples of others breaking the typecast mould would be Clint Eastwood, William Shatner & Tom Hanks who probably surprised everyone when he changed from clown to all round Oscar winning thespian.

I'm glad this thread generated so much discussion as that's what makes this site so unique.

Cheers, Matt

ps. Good call on The Devils Backbone.......... a brilliant piece of cinema.

[Andrés Verdú]

Interesting question, Juan!

I think that Janet Leigh sadly passed away a few years ago, so that would count her out, but I think we're onto a good thing if we stick with the ladies (longevity and all). Right off the top of my head I can think of three who would fit the bill:

- Linda Blair (The Exorcist).
- Ingrid Pitt (Countess Dracula, Vampire Lovers...)
- Barbara Steele (La maschera del demonio, Pit and the Pendulum, Curse of the Crimson altar...)

I'm surprised that nobody came up with these three. Hazel Court would have been a good choice too, but she sadly passed away as Jill says. As for male actors, I have one in mind:

- Udo Kier (Blood for Dracula; or in recent times Blade and Halloween, and far too many others to name)

Well, that makes four. I will have a think on this and add some more names if any come to mind. Anyway, take care everyone:

Warmest regards,

Andrés

Note: Just thought of another male actor who could be included - Michael Gough (plenty of Hammer films, and, more recently, Sleepy Hollow with Mr Lee).

[Jill Clark]

Thanks for the clarification, Juan--I was a little iffy on the question at hand.

Good additions, all, Andres. Allow me some time to digress on the differences between Horror (male) and Terror (female) elements of the Gothic. I discuss these elements frequently in my Gothic and Fantastic Literature and Film classes.

True, I don't think we shall see the likes of the Golden Age of Cinema again. Mr. Lee's Hammer films, in particular, have their own distinct qualities, especially the rich technicolor tones, classic sets, and outstanding actors. Gary Oldman's methods don't stand the acid test when compared to the likes of Mr. Lee, Bela Lugosi, Vincent Price, etc., who were classicly trained on the stage, but who managed to do quite nicely without all of the blue screens. (Now, Mr. Lee can out-act others, using the blue screen, as well.) The current trend on TV and movies tends toward what Umberto Eco termed as "hyperrealism," referring of course to realism that appears real but isn't. Blair Witch Project is one example, which has its assets, but which changed the way we think of horror--can you name the stars of BWP? Probably not--and films like Scream used established stars, for the most part. Reality shows like "Survivor," "American Idol," and "Project Runway" can be fascinating, but they are all smoke and mirrors, editing the acts of people who, for the most part, aren't actors, so the craft of drama has been frittered away in favor of spectacle and b.s. histrionics. Nevertheless, some of these shows have their precedent in the illusion of what is not seen in the old movies, like Hitchcock's blood in Psycho, which we now know was Hershey's syrup. Stagecraft has its smoke and mirrors, but you have to be versed in the art as well as the science and technique of the stage. Even shows like CSI tend to place emphasis on gross reality and factual portrayal at the expense of the art; I mention Billy Petersen because he started out in horror/suspense, and that pushed him into the suspense genre--no longer horror in the classic sense of the word. Nevertheless, IMHO Billy is a stellar actor, controlled and accurate, above the norm in the biz. Hyperreal horror has become focused more on the horrors of everyday life than on fantastic figures. Just my two cents.

[Matt Gemmell]

Unless I'm mistaken I think Juan was asking for international movie stars and none of the names given so far could rightly make that claim.
Linda Blair is a lovely lady and The Exorcist is one of my favourite films but she's hardly known at all outwith the horror field. As for the others mentioned, again I'm aware of their work but I doubt your casual movie goer would have a clue. Their fame is confined to the horror film buff ( myself included ) I don't mean that to sound cruel it's just a statement of fact.

[Andrés Verdú]

Originally Posted by Jill Clark

Nevertheless, some of these shows have their precedent in the illusion of what is not seen in the old movies, like Hitchcock's blood in Psycho, which we now know was Hershey's syrup. Stagecraft has its smoke and mirrors, but you have to be versed in the art as well as the science and technique of the stage.

Okay, Jill, I know you compressed quite a lot of different ideas into your post, but I'm just going to pick up on this one point for now. I have always thought that the most effective "horror" is that which is not shown on the screen, but rather implied or suggested. For me, the human imagination is far more capable of horrifying someone more than anything that can be portrayed (be it on the screen, in the theatre, or wherever). For instance, picking up on your example of Hitchcock's shower scene in the film Psycho, not only is the blood not real blood, but when Norman is supposed to be stabbing poor Marion Crane, the blade of the knife never actually cuts into her once onscreen (you just see her body and the knife in juxtaposition to one another; the soundtrack, clever camera work, lighting and the viewer's imagination does the rest). A similar use of suggestion as a form of stimulating the viewer's imagination is seen in Rosemary's Baby at the end of the film when a pair of cat's eyes are seen, and yet people have imagined they actually saw Rosemary's baby, whereas in fact the child never appears on the screen.

I think it is a grave mistake to show too much onscreen, not least because it is patronising to the viewer (rather like saying "you don't have to do anything, we've done it all for you!" How boring is that?) This is not to say that special effects don't have their place in the art of filmmaking, but that is precisely what it should be, "a place" not "the whole film is a special effects extravaganza". Yes everyone knows that CGI, etc. can create visual wonders, but what is the point of that without a proper story to tell? I would rather be entertained for two to three hours with good actors and a proper story than by fancy CGI surface without substance. Touching on what you say about "the emphasis of gross reality and factual portrayal" puts me in mind of those kinds of movies which rely on cutting, slicing, dismembering, or otherwise dissecting the human body in just about any way possible, again in lieu of a decent plot ("heavy on the gore, hold the story" type film). I think John Carpenter's Halloween is one of the few exceptions to the rule, in that it is a well-made film with a story that for the most part one feels is moving somewhere (although it has a lot of bad stuff to answer for).

I suppose it all depends on how one defines "horror" and "terror", the ways in which the filmmakers (or writers, etc.) seek to bring about these psychological reactions, and, of course, people react in different ways to the same thing particular to themselves. If my basic understanding of these terms is correct (I know that there are differences of opinion regarding the distinction) then "terror" precedes "horror" as an emotional experience, in so far as terror would be the build-up or anticipation of the moment of the event/experience whereas horror would be the feelings or reactions following on from that moment. With this rather basic definition in mind, I think I would lean towards terror rather than horror, in that sense of dread or anxiety that builds towards the moment. For example, one of the scariest things for me in a "horror" film is when a character has their back to the viewer and they are about to turn around and you don't quite know what they are going to look like (but you sense it's going to be something really awful). In those moments of anticipation, one's imagination can run riot. And that brings me back to what I was saying before about "showing too much" vs "leaving things to the viewer's imagination". I think perhaps H P Lovecraft said it best in his study of the genre Supernatural Horror in Literature: "The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown." To me this makes a very good point, and the more one knows about something, the less frightening or fearsome it becomes. Anyway, there are my current thoughts on the subject, such as they are. Take care everyone:

Warmest regards,

Andrés

[Juan Aneiros]

The simple answer to that one Juan is that there is no one. Christopher Lee is the last of that golden age. Lugosi, Karloff, Price, Cushing, Carradine.
The days of actors being purely associated with a type of genre are gone except for the independent, low budget world.

That is what I thought. So would you say that over the years, of course there are movies which are big exceptions, that it would be very hard for an actor today to reach recognition solely by working in that genre?

For instance, you have a young ambitious actor, lots of charisma, presence, etc. If he was to have a choice, would he chose horror or would he chose another genre?

What I am trying to get at, isn't it the genre itself and those who control it responsible or is it simply a matter of simply being considered the lowest form of movies? A discriminated form of art?

Kind of like, if you are good you are good and if not, you can try your luck at horror?

It's all theoretical, of course, there will always be a division of opinions.

[Andrés Verdú]

Originally Posted by Matt Gemmell

Unless I'm mistaken I think Juan was asking for international movie stars and none of the names given so far could rightly make that claim.
Linda Blair is a lovely lady and The Exorcist is one of my favourite films but she's hardly known at all outwith the horror field. As for the others mentioned, again I'm aware of their work but I doubt your casual movie goer would have a clue. Their fame is confined to the horror film buff ( myself included ) I don't mean that to sound cruel it's just a statement of fact.

No problem, Matt! Perhaps I misunderstood the conditions of the question. After all, when Juan said "Stereotyped, label on the back, they names pops up and boom, international horror star. Font cover of Fangoria, horror conventions, the full works", in my mind that presupposed, at the very minimum, a nodding acquaintance with horror films and the genre. Maybe I was stretching too far?

Having said that, I'm pretty sure that most everyone has heard about The Exorcist at one time or another, and I think that quite a few people would know the name Linda Blair if they heard it. Ingrid Pitt and Barbara Steele admittedly would be less familiar outside of the genre, due no doubt to the fact that they belong to an older generation. Udo Kier and Michael Gough are perhaps not so much instantly identifiable in NAME as they are as FACES on the screen. For instance, Michael Gough played Batman's butler Alfred in several of the Batman films, but I doubt a lot of people would be able to name him. Okay... back to thinking, but I don't think we're not going to find anyone who is as internationally famous as Mr Lee and wholly associated with the genre, with the possible exception of Robert Englund who has already been named. Take care everyone:

Warmest regards,

Andrés

[Andrés Verdú]

Originally Posted by Juan Aneiros

That is what I thought. So would you say that over the years, of course there are movies which are big exceptions, that it would be very hard for an actor today to reach recognition solely by working in that genre?

For instance, you have a young ambitious actor, lots of charisma, presence, etc. If he was to have a choice, would he chose horror or would he chose another genre?

What I am trying to get at, isn't it the genre itself and those who control it responsible or is it simply a matter of simply being considered the lowest form of movies? A discriminated form of art?

Kind of like, if you are good you are good and if not, you can try your luck at horror?

It's all theoretical, of course, there will always be a division of opinions.

If I were the actor and I had a choice, I wouldn't choose "horror" unless it were a very good script with a good director and good supporting cast. I think the problem lies not only with the perception (real or otherwise) that "horror" is discriminated against, but also that the nature of the genre, or rather the way in which the genre is being developed, seems to have changed beyond all recognition in the last 20-30 years or more. I think this explains why the Hollywood "remakes" are so abysmally poor, because they have forgotten how to make films. What most perplexes me is how many of the classic films of yesteryear of the genre were so well-made on such low budgets whereas the films of today are, with very few exceptions, so appalling despite the millions pumped into making them. Returning to the question, I think actors today cannot really survive by sticking to one genre, especially if that genre is "horror" - perhaps with the possible exception of Hugh Grant who always seems to play exactly the same role in every film he has ever worked in and does unbelievably well out of it (apologies to any Hugh Grant fans out there). Anyway, take care everyone:

Warmest regards,

Andrés

[Matt Gemmell]

Originally Posted by Juan Aneiros

That is what I thought. So would you say that over the years, of course there are movies which are big exceptions, that it would be very hard for an actor today to reach recognition solely by working in that genre?

For instance, you have a young ambitious actor, lots of charisma, presence, etc. If he was to have a choice, would he chose horror or would he chose another genre?

What I am trying to get at, isn't it the genre itself and those who control it responsible or is it simply a matter of simply being considered the lowest form of movies? A discriminated form of art?

Kind of like, if you are good you are good and if not, you can try your luck at horror?

It's all theoretical, of course, there will always be a division of opinions.

I think, regardless of the genre, talent will out. It’s as difficult today to gain recognition as it’s always been. There have only been a handful of people throughout the years who have managed it and we’ve already mentioned them. Regarding choosing horror….. I think most young actors are happy to be working regardless of the genre. Choices only come when one can afford them.

What does happen is that many young stars get their break in horror. The reason for this is that horror films are normally cheap to make and usually recoup the cost of production. Some of todays biggest stars started that way, Tom Hanks, Johny Depp, Rene Zelwigger to name but a few.
Then we have the established big names who “try their luck” in the horror field. Anthony Hopkins, Jack Nicholson, Michelle Pfeifer, Kenneth Branagh, Robert De Niro. I think we’d all agree that they are all at the top of their game yet some of the movies have been less than stellar.

Add to that the amount of directors who started in horror and retain a love for the genre, Peter Jackson & Sam Raimi for example.

I agree that there is a certain snobbishness regarding horror films and that it is a discriminated form of art but they continue to be made in large numbers. More so than any other genre.

If anyone’s looking for a good, recent horror film just check out “ The Orphanage “ It’s one of my favourite films of the year…………….. regardless of genre.

Cheers, Matt

ps. As this is a Dracula thread you might like to know that the BFI restoration print of Terence Fishers Dracula is getting a special showing at the Glasgow Film Theatre on Sunday 26th October. I'll be there.