Dracula: Prince of Darkness in Hammer Horror Forum

0 Points

Forum Jump

Dracula: Prince of Darkness

Author	Comment
grgstv338	Re: Dracula: Prince of Darkness	#41	[-]
Oct 2 06 5:17 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Here it is! (I think). (¬_¬) Also, here are two others: (9_9) or (@.@)
	Remove this ad
skelton knaggs	Re: Dracula: Prince of Darkness	#42	[-]
Oct 2 06 8:46 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	*Quote:* (@.@) This reminds me of Paul Birch in NOT OF THIS EARTH....just another bloodsucker! "Look at me"."My eyes are alien".
Ted Newsom	Re: Dracula: Prince of Darkness	#43	[-]
Oct 3 06 12:54 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	~~__~~ (@. .@) .....^..... ....[O]... Joey, cool yer jets, I am being a bad boy and jerking your chain. But you do still seem very unclear on text vs. subtext. This is not a personal thing with me, I'm not angry with you and I don't want you to be angry with me... but it is intellectually baffling. Your insights and observations are often brilliant, always on-point... but subtextual themes are layers beneath the obvious intent of telling a story, not the external elements. That these sort of things often become obvious and "textual" (like the latter-day Hammers, the Karnstein movies, etc.) is beside the point. There is a strong anti-Communist subtext to THEM!, for instance... but the movie is not about giant Commies dressing up in bug suits to subvert the Constitution. There is a very strong political subtext to INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (whether left- or right-wing... anti-totalitarian, at any rate), but not once in the story does anyone stuff a ballot box, fly a national flag, or steal atom bomb secrets. Terry Fisher's Hammer films, generally, are not layered with subtext, except in the staging and playing of certain scenes. He's simply a straight-ahead, functional director. But with certain material, it IS there-- like the scenes I mentioned in DPOD. BRIDES OF DRACULA is crammed with gay subtext, which, in that case, is used menacingly and equated with assorted other ... ahem... alternate pursuits. I sure picked it up when I was a kid, though I didn't know why David Peel felt so unsettlingly creepy. That's long before I read in Scarlet Street that he brought his poodles to work every day. (BRIDES is essentially a vampire version of Tennesee Williams' SUDDENLY LAST SUMMER, where the subtext IS the text, and the implications are much more direct than BRIDES.) Sometimes there just ain't none... just like, sometimes people write stories that mean just what they say and nothing more. And other times people don't get it: the social commentary and backhandedly wicked observations in HUCKLEBERRY FINN, for instance-- as opposed to the extremely superficial and fun TOM SAWYER. The eating scene in TOM JONES-- famous, hysterical, for what it's NOT showing-- it's just two people in close-up, eating voraciously. But is there subtext? You bet. You see what's on their minds... and they're just eating food... fully clothed. As for the straw man in WHITE ZOMBIE... I don't know anyone who sees anything in Lugosi's line, "I have taken an interest in YOU, M'sieur." And that IS interesting. The line itself COULD be riddled with double meanings... if Karloff said it in THE BLACK CAT, for instance. Or Rathbone in THE MAD DOCTOR. Or Atwill in just about anything. But WHITE ZOMBIE is a superficial ghost story with one-dimensional characters... beautifully shot and designed, to be sure, but basic and schematic...
Joe Karlosi	Re: Dracula: Prince of Darkness	#44	[-]
Oct 3 06 5:20 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	*Quote:* But you do still seem very unclear on text vs. subtext. it is intellectually baffling. Your insights and observations are often brilliant, always on-point... There is a strong anti-Communist subtext to THEM!, for instance... There is a very strong political subtext to INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS Terry Fisher's Hammer films, generally, are not layered with subtext, except in the staging and playing of certain scenes. BRIDES OF DRACULA is crammed with gay subtext, which, in that case, is used menacingly and equated with assorted other ... ahem... alternate pursuits. I sure picked it up when I was a kid, though I didn't know why David Peel felt so unsettlingly creepy. Sometimes there just ain't none... just like, sometimes people write stories that mean just what they say and nothing more. And other times people don't get it: the social commentary and backhandedly wicked observations in HUCKLEBERRY FINN, for instance-- as opposed to the extremely superficial and fun TOM SAWYER. The eating scene in TOM JONES-- famous, hysterical, for what it's NOT showing-- it's just two people in close-up, eating voraciously. But is there subtext? You bet. You see what's on their minds... and they're just eating food... fully clothed. but subtextual themes are layers beneath the obvious intent of telling a story, not the external elements. Ted, I understand that "sub" (as in "under") is something "beneath the obvious surface". But still, unintended "subtext" cannot be proven and cannot be a "fact". It's in people's minds. They either perceive it that way or they don't. And it's extremely insulting when someone says "it's definitely there, no doubt about it, but you are unable to get it" or implies that "your insights are usually brilliant..." but then because I don't see something the same as you, you claim they it is "intellectually baffling". I don't agree with you. You cannot prove that unintended subtext exists outside of one's own interpretation or mind. Sorry, but I just watched BRIDES OF DRACULA and don't see the "gayness" you insist is there, factually, undeniably (I do realize that David Peel was gay). You say you picked up on it as a child? Good for you -- I guess I'm mentally deficient (yeah, right). Now, if you want to delve into the Oedipus thing with the son biting his mother -- okay I can stretch that one a bit in BRIDES. *Quote:* As for the straw man in WHITE ZOMBIE... I don't know anyone who sees anything in Lugosi's line, "I have taken an interest in YOU, M'sieur." And that IS interesting. The line itself COULD be riddled with double meanings... if Karloff said it in THE BLACK CAT, for instance. Or Rathbone in THE MAD DOCTOR. Or Atwill in just about anything. But WHITE ZOMBIE is a superficial ghost story with one-dimensional characters... beautifully shot and designed, to be sure, but basic and schematic... If you want to talk about something that baffles the mind, then I am genuinely baffled that you haven't heard anyone make any double meaning out of Lugosi's WHITE ZOMBIE line. I mean, am I on 'Candid Camera' or something here? Have I just entered into THE TWILIGHT ZONE, and are you Rod Serling? I give you a situation where a gay subtext is so much more possible - Lugosi wants the man for himself and has made him his own slave, so to speak - and even says he's taken a liking to him! I'm "playing your own game".... and yet you dismiss this? I haven't heard the audio commentary in awhile, but does Gary Don Rhodes agree? My points on the Thesiger character in BRIDE are also dead on. Are you saying that all my life, as a kid and then later on as I grew up, whenever I just naturally felt that the effeminate doctor says he's "really interested" in creating a woman is because he liked the ladies, that I was mentally flawed somehow because I just never interpreted it as a gay thing? That was way before I ever heard these ideas on the internet, and it's extremely offensive to insist you're right and anyone else who isn't inclined to feel and sense things in the same way as Ted Newsom (or many others) is "wrong". A "fact" is something which can be tested or proven. These interpretations or sensations cannot. "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" - and I didn't make that one up. But please don't go on exaggerating indefinitely that I am "never" able to see the sexuality in vampire films. That's a load of hooey. I can feel the eroticism, I can sense it. I am aware of it. In the DRACULA'S DAUGHTER thread you said there was a big brawl with Scarlet Street some years ago regarding subtext, and that you didn't want something like that to occur again... but still you admittedly came here to "be a bad boy and jerk my chain" and start some sort of subtext debate. If there was a "subtext war" that went on at SS, that means there are two opinions on the idea. P.S. - If it makes you any happier, I do sense something gay with FRANKENSTEIN: THE TRUE STORY. Do I earn my wings? ---------------------- "It's MORE ... than a hobby!"
Ted Newsom	Re: Dracula: Prince of Darkness	#45	[-]
Oct 3 06 10:04 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	In spades. There, it seems like a very deliberate and conscious decision on the parts of everyone involved, from the writer & director to the performers... but there are plenty of people who don't see it or never noticed it... like me. I always thought the thing was an overlong and essentially uninteresting adaptation, and never gave it much textual thought, paying no heed to any other layers to it. Does this make me dumb, too? Mmmmm... could beee...
BijouBob8mm	Re: Dracula: Prince of Darkness	#46	[-]
Oct 3 06 10:30 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Sounds like I like FRANKENSTEIN: THE TRUE STORY much more than Ted does. Although it certainly took too many liberties with the tale to really be "the true story," I thought it was a lavish and entertaining production. As for it having a gay subtext, I believe I've read that screenwriter Christopher Isherwood was homosexual, so that may well have been intended early on. It may have also drawn upon the relationship between the real Byron and Polidori.
Joe Karlosi	Re: Dracula: Prince of Darkness	#47	[-]
Oct 3 06 10:36 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	*Quote:* In spades. There, it seems like a very deliberate and conscious decision on the parts of everyone involved, from the writer & director to the performers... but there are plenty of people who don't see it or never noticed it... like me. I always thought the thing was an overlong and essentially uninteresting adaptation, and never gave it much textual thought, paying no heed to any other layers to it. Does this make me dumb, too? Mmmmm... could beee... LOL! Well, Ted, it just goes to show ya. I'm beginning to think that maybe I actually agree on the subtext thing (at times) but it's just that we've been approaching it (or defining and describing it) differently. Back to FRANKENSTEIN: THE TRUE STORY... to me, there was a strong feeling of homsexuality to the proceedings. As you've said before with other films, no - Victor Frankenstein is not literally "gay" in the story... and when I watch it, I don't believe that Frankenstein and his handsome creation are lovers. I believe Victor loves and wants (in the sexual sense) his fiance, Elizabeth... and later on, the creature takes a physical liking to Agatha (Jane Seymour). However ... the vibe, the underlying gay intonations, if you like, are there between creator and creature, too - at least to me. It's definitely one way a person could look at the relationship, but while I acknowledge this undercurrent, on the actual surface I view Victor and the monster simply as master and pupil, or good friends who love each other. Initially there is that bond between them. But when Frankenstein ignores Elizabeth to focus more on his creation, it does have a gay undertone about it, but in actual fact the doctor is not choosing to make love to the monster instead of his girl. It's a different kind of relationship. ---------------------- "It's MORE ... than a hobby!"
Ted Newsom	Re: dead right Bijou	#48	[-]
Oct 3 06 11:09 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Wow.
Monsterpal	Re: dead right Bijou	#49	[-]
Oct 3 06 11:20 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Ted, I feel compelled to mention that I find a political and historical subtext in Fisher's Frankenstein and Dracula films, as well as the much discussed sexual goodies. We see the lower classes at the mercy of the aristocracy in both series---and the aristocrats in question have little interest in the concept of noblesse oblige. They're cold, cruel, and manipulative, and the peasants are quite helpless against them. Admittedly, the theme is altered from one series to the other. Cushing's Frankenstein is a brilliant scientist far ahead of his time, but he's still willing to kill and hack off limbs, heads, and organs to further his research and experiments. Dracula's exploitation of the masses is a bit less high-minded. Was Fisher a Labourite, by any chance?
grgstv338	Re: dead right Bijou	#50	[-]
Oct 3 06 12:18 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Ah, peace in the valley... *Quote:* I always thought the thing was an overlong and essentially uninteresting adaptation, Hey, wait a minute! (This probably belongs in the F:TTS thread, but, it's here, so what the heck). Although I remember being underwhelmed when I originally saw this as a kid, I find myself liking it more and more over the years. Yeah, the "true story" thing is misleading (but no more than Coppola's BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA) and there's stunt-casting for its own sake (hey, Stewart Granger and John Gielgud, thanks for playing), but you have to give it credit for trying something new. Sarrazin is actually quite good, and I think David McCallum, Jane Seymour and (especially) James Mason are all terrific.
	Remove this ad
Ted Newsom	Re: dead right Bijou	#51	[-]
Oct 3 06 12:30 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Maybe I'd like it more now, too, if I watched it, but the Frankenstein story doesn't much interest me any more (Well, OK, I confess to watching the Edison thing last week for the first time... magificent, layered and surprising performance by Ogle.) As for Hammeroinan political subtext... I wouldn't lay it at the feet of Terry Fisher entirely... if at all. Those things-- nobility vs. the masses, corruption of the rich and powerful, etc.-- were pretty much standard elements of Gothic fiction by the 50s, and in any case, Anthony Hinds and Jimmy Sangster are probably more the sources. As somebody who rose up through the ranks, I'd expect Fisher was sympathetic to these things... but the same anti-Establishment attitude is there in the Quatermass films... so do we attribute it to director Val Guest (and/or Roy Baker...) or to the essentially-identical prior TV scripts by Nigel Kneale...? Ah, me, questions, questions...
BijouBob8mm	Re: Hammer of Frankenstein	#52	[-]
Oct 3 06 1:12 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	*Quote:* I find myself liking it more and more over the years. I enjoyed its debut, even though I was in junior high, but my appreciation for it has increased as an adult. (It, along with the Hammer Films Frankenstein saga, were major influences on a half hour Super 8 student film I did as a teen, called FRANKENSTEIN: A FAIRY TALE.)
Jojo Lapin X	Re: Dracula: Prince of Darkness	#53	[-]
Oct 5 06 4:47 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	*Quote:* You cannot prove that unintended subtext exists outside of one's own interpretation or mind. I think you are using "subtext" in a sense other than the standard one. You seem to mean something like a secret message deliberately left by the filmmaker. But a subtext is normally simply a reasoned account of a story in which it is argued that the surface justification of the narrative can be replaced by a different one while still leaving the story coherent. Suppose, for instance, I claim it is possible to retell the narrative of BRIDES OF DRACULA, replacing Meinster's vampirism with homosexuality, and still have the events make sense. Whether this is possible or not is of course not a subjective matter. If it is possible, then this retelling is a subtext of the film. Whether it was intended by the author or not is completely beside the point. Ok, good, now that that is settled, we should turn to the really tricky issues. Such as what Cary Grant means when, dressed in a lady's bathrobe, he says that he is "gay" in BRINGING UP BABY (1938). It is the subject of a fascinating thread on the IMDb message board for the film.
Ted Newsom	Re: Dracula: Prince of Darkness	#54	[-]
Oct 5 06 10:00 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The quote, properly: Old Bag to Cary, in a woman's nightie: Old Bag: "But why are you wearing those clothes?!?" Cary: "Because I've just gone gay-- all of a sudden!" I don't think there's a lot of sub to that subtext...
Jojo Lapin X	Re: Dracula: Prince of Darkness	#55	[-]
Oct 6 06 5:27 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	*Quote:* I don't think there's a lot of sub to that subtext... Nevertheless, one poster on the IMDb insists, as if it were a life-or-death matter, that it is impossible.
Ted Newsom	Re: Dracula: Prince of Darkness	#56	[-]
Oct 6 06 9:58 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I waded through it and had an eerie sense of deja vu. Thanks for the link. Funny, few of the anti-subtexters there ever want to acknowledge substantiated, referenced fact. I learned something through it-- that the word "gay" was a code word unknown to the straight world as far back as the 1930s or even 1920s. But the stalwarts over there insist that it could not have been used in this obvious comedy context in BABY because their Cary Grant isn't, wasn't, never was, gay. Hey, who says he has to be? He's playing a very straight character who's standing in a doorway of someone else's home, he's wearing a frilly woman's lace nightie. What could you say to explain this? (And the counter-argument that, "Well, a transvestitte is not a homosexual, they're completely different, so that couldn't be what they meant!" Well, duh. Back to school guys, to learn something about fact vs. general public perception. You need to watch GLEN OR GLENDA? and take notes. Then transcribe Simon Oakland's speech from PSYCHO. You can learn a lot from genre movies...) All very instructive.
Monsterpal	Re: Dracula: Prince of Darkness	#57	[-]
Oct 6 06 10:35 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	*Quote:* Back to school guys, to learn something about fact vs. general public perception. You need to watch GLEN OR GLENDA? and take notes. Then transcribe Simon Oakland's speech from PSYCHO. You can learn a lot from genre movies...) Such as Woody Allen's EVERYTHING YOU WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT SEX BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK, which offers a tantalizing titbit for genre fans.
Ted Newsom	fun with semantics and science	#58	[-]
Oct 6 06 1:07 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Dr. Bernardo: Here I'm studying premature ejaculation in a hippopotamus. Victor Shakapopulis: How often does that problem come up with a hippo? Dr. Bernardo: Here I'm forcing a man to have intercourse with a large rye bread. They're getting on famously! Here I'm going to take the brain of a lesbian and put it into the body of a man who works for the telephone company. Victor Shakapopulis: But why? What good will this do anybody? Dr. Bernardo: It'll show those fools who called me mad!
Jojo Lapin X	Re: Dracula: Prince of Darkness	#59	[-]
Oct 6 06 2:25 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	*Quote:* I waded through it and had an eerie sense of deja vu. Thanks for the link. The IMDb is a goldmine (or is cesspool the word I am looking for?) of such things. I think many people do not even notice the boards---I know it took me many years of IMDb use before I thought of looking there---but there is a separate message board for every film listed, and for every person listed.
Monsterpal	Re: fun with semantics and science	#60	[-]
Oct 6 06 9:12 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	*Quote:* Victor Shakapopulis: But why? What good will this do anybody? Cue the zombie cub scouts.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

Dracula: Prince of Darkness