Comments on: House of Dracula

by: paulwjm

Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:29:34 +0000

The problem today seems to be still one of potential offence to various people/groups - for example the pretty crass alteration (made by Warner UK rather than the BBFC) made to the soundtrack for Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut to prevent insult being taken by a resident Eastern religious group prevalent in the UK, plus they still have problems with violence to women of course (see the recent New York Ripper disc, although that’s a pretty extreme example!). And don’t mention those UK Tom & Jerry DVDs to me!

It’s funny but you listing the cuts to Curse… in that way makes it sound far nastier than it actually is watching it.

by: John Hodson

Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:20:11 +0000

Paul, just to try and clear this up (aka flog that dead horse), the cuts include; …heavy cuts to the repeated stabbing of the Marquis (reduced to one stab), the murder of the prostitute where scenes of biting and a shot of her dead body were completely removed, and the killing of the werewolf in the bell tower which saw shots of his screaming when the bells ring, a blood spurt from a gunshot, and a closeup of his blood-dripping face also removed. In addition the film was also cut to edit scenes of the servant girl waking in the dungeon, a shot of the Marquis picking a scab from his face and images of dead lambs.

When the BBFC passed it in ‘61 it was 88m 24s; Universal’s R1 DVD runs 92m 40s.

My point was that it was pretty much standard censorship for the day, not just for reasons of violence but hacking scenes which were deemed tasteless or salacious; I can’t imagine what would be deemed ‘tasteless’ today (in fact, I don’t even want to think about it…)

by: paulwjm

Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:52:08 +0000

In Britain they had big problems with the censors when it came to Curse… Trevelyan (the BBFC secretary at the time) didn’t think it should have been shown even heavily censored - part of the problem was the potential offence caused to various action groups of the time. Details are not available on the BBFC site of the actual cuts nowadays but I’ve read figures suggesting at least one minute, possibly as much as three (bear in mind this was even after the BBFC had reviewed the script and suggested changes prior to shooting, something that was commonplace during the day). I saw the X certificate shown at an arthouse cinema about ten years ago and didn’t enjoy it - the cuts were noticeable. The MPAA weren’t nearly as harsh with it. Of course the film’s now restored and available courtesy of Universal in the US and a very nice edition it is.

But, I’ve digressed, let’s hope they surprise us with The Wolf Man - you never know. Then again, I’ve read that the screenplay is being rewritten by David Self, the guy who wrote The Haunting (the 1999 remake that is - AAARRRGGGHHHH…).

by: John Hodson

Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:56:12 +0000

Cuts not withstanding, and they were relatively minor, ‘Curse’ was nonetheless considered pretty horrifying in it’s day and it was, of course, given an X certificate; different times, changing values.

I think you’re spot on and it will aim for the fattest sector of the market; we are either going to get a kind of tongue in cheek ‘Van Helsing’ / ‘Mask of Zorro’ hybrid, or a ‘Saw III’ slasher bloodfest. Either way, I’ll stay at home.

by: paulwjm

Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:31:08 +0000

Yes, if they go for that kind of format I think I’m giving up on Hollywood. Thing is though, I think the werewolf subgenre has always had a great potential that’s often missed so whenever such a movie is announced I’m pretty excited.

Curse of the Werewolf was indeed a world apart from the Universal films but of course it was very heavily censored in its day so it’s not like they really got away with too much. Problem is nowadays that there’s a tendency to aim for the lowest denominator as far as age is concerned in order to reap maximum returns, hence we often end up with PG-13 rated anaemic material instead of real terror (then there’s the other extreme with the current batch of ‘torture’ movies which has become tiresome real quick).

by: John Hodson

Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:21:23 +0000

del Toro? Blimey, it’s a cross between Larry Talbot and Ollie Reed’s Leon Corledo.

However, times have indeed moved on - I’m not that naive (well, not much…), Hammer had their werewolf the product of the rape of a mute virgin wench by a looney, hirsute, imprisoned tramp who hadn’t seen soap in a generation (and he didn’t even wash first…yeeeuchhh!)

From ‘even a man that is pure at heart…’ to that in 20 years; gawd knows what faces us half a century later. After ‘Van Helsing’, my expectations are predictably low.

by: paulwjm

Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:24:58 +0000

I don’t mind as long as it’s a good movie - the thing is, that sort of innocence wouldn’t cut it nowadays so it has to be a bit more edgy, possibly more violent, and a little more libido wouldn’t go amiss either! I believe that Benicio del Toro is playing Larry Talbot with Anthony Hopkins as his father. It’s still a year or so away at the moment.

by: John Hodson

Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:17:26 +0000

The new Wolf Man remake? There will be blood… (and lots of CGI transformations. A little lycanthropic sex. And more blood spurting all over the darned place, large yellow teeth and much rending of limbs from limb.)

I’m expecting not much will be left to the imagination. In short, none of the innocence of the original Universal monster films.

by: paulwjm

Sun, 24 Feb 2008 16:44:57 +0000

He did as well, plus a memorably sly sort of voice too. I suppose it was nice to see Talbot cured, unless the Abbott & Costello story chronologically followed the sequence of events here, in which case the doctor’s rather inventive theory must have proven wrong. Be interesting to see how the new Wolf Man remake - due to start shooting imminently - is going to turn out by the way. I’m certainly looking forward to it at the moment.

by: livius

Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:14:13 +0000

I never really warmed to this one myself, but you did nail the positives here - namely the performance of Onslow Stevens. Without his presence I would be hard pressed to find anything good to say about this film. Mind you, I always liked the fact that poor old Larry Talbot finally got cured of his affliction.

Glad that you managed to slip in a reference to Skelton Knaggs - that guy certainly had one memorably ugly mug!