Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed

[Chris Workman]

Troy, I was merely pointing out that I never said Fisher was an auteur. I'm not sure how pointing out a consistency and evolution of the character that seems to be true of only Fisher's films proves that. It merely proves that Fisher had some interest in the evolution of the character, something he explained very well in an interview excerpted in an early issue of Fangoria. I point to Bava precisely because you do call him a auteur. You have said that Fisher is a "jobbing" director, as if that is proof that he cannot be an auteur (which, again, I don't believe he is), but likewise, Bava too took work for hire (he said so himself in one of the interviews contained in the back of your distinguished and terrific tome on the brilliant director). It just seems to me that you are responding to an argument that was never made (that Fisher was an auteur).

I didn't want this to devolve into who is and who isn't an auteur. But that said, I'd point to Hitchcock, possibly David Fincher (though he isn't necessarily a good one), and a few others. But very few others, because most directors take in considerable creative input from others, whether they're writers, producers, set designers, cinematographers, etc. Interestingly, I might make the case for Val Lewton being an auteur, though he wasn't even a director! I wouldn't call Ed Wood Jr. an auteur (I'm not sure being universally bad makes one an auteur).

[Troy Howarth]

I really think you're reading too much into what I said. You know I love Fisher's work, and I've gone to pains to highlight some of his particular gifts in this thread. Bava has nothing to do with it, nor does any other director I may or may not deem to be an auteur. It's not about comparisons, Chris, but about my trying to deal with the idea put forth that the Baron, as presented by Hammer, was somehow crafted and shaped by him personally. No harm intended.

In any event, thanks for the kind comments about my book - much appreciated!

[Ehren H.]

On a different note...

I watched this and really really enjoyed it. It was surprisingly mean-spirited and nasty for a Hammer film (at least compared to the Hammer films I have seen), and Cushing was fantastic.

I kind of liked the idea that instead of Frankenstein creating a monster which was the villain and threat, the Baron himself was the villain/threat. Couple that with some amazing Cushing tongue lashings, this film was a winner.

Any other Hammer reccomendations from you guys? My viewing of them is relatively miniscule, I've seen The Anniversary, Taste the Blood of Dracula, Satanic Rites of Dracula, Devil Rides Out, Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires, and I found the Hammer version of Hound of the Baskervilles on tape but haven't watched it yet. Anything else I need to see?

[Troy Howarth]

For starters: Curse of Frankenstein, Revenge of Frankenstein, Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell, The Abominable Snowman, Quatermass Xperiment, Quatermass 2, Quatermass and the Pit, Horror of Dracula, Brides of Dracula, Kiss of the Vampire, Curse of the Werewolf, Phantom of the Opera, Plague of the Zombies, Dracula Prince of Darkness... that should keep you busy for a while.

[Ehren H.]

Originally Posted by Troy Howarth

For starters: Curse of Frankenstein, Revenge of Frankenstein, Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell, The Abominable Snowman, Quatermass Xperiment, Quatermass 2, Quatermass and the Pit, Horror of Dracula, Brides of Dracula, Kiss of the Vampire, Curse of the Werewolf, Phantom of the Opera, Plague of the Zombies, Dracula Prince of Darkness... that should keep you busy for a while.

All of those we either have at work, or I can snag for cheap on vhs...the hunt begins. I almost bought Brides of Dracula and Kiss of the Vampire yesterday, dammit!

[Troy Howarth]

I take it you are not in the US? Universal put out a lovely box set that included Brides, Kiss, Curse of the Werewolf, Phantom and some others...

Oops, reading your location, I see you are in the US - try Deepdiscount, they should have it in stock.

[Ehren H.]

Originally Posted by Troy Howarth

I take it you are not in the US? Universal put out a lovely box set that included Brides, Kiss, Curse of the Werewolf, Phantom and some others...

Oops, reading your location, I see you are in the US - try Deepdiscount, they should have it in stock.

Haha yeah I'm in the US, we actually have that Hammer Collection at work, I never thought of just bringing that home, didn't even think to check what was on it honestly...I think I can order it relatively cheap as well.

[Troy Howarth]

Yeah, it's not expensive - the films are hit and miss, but Brides, Kiss, Curse and Phantom are all well worth owning.

[Chris Workman]

Troy, I realize in retrospect that my email sounded a bit harsher than I intended it to.

I actually do believe that Fisher had some impact on the characterization of the Baron in the films he directed. I don't think he drove every aspect of the screenplays by any means. After all, they were probably produced independently of him before he was ever signed on to direct. But we do know that Fisher frequently tampered with his scripts and improved them (Jensen details this to some degree in THE MEN WHO MADE THE MONSTERS), so it only seems reasonable to conclude there was probably some of that going on here.

The Hammer Horror Series from Universal is a steal at the price (if you can snag a copy that works). It includes most of their product (I wish they'd have just gone ahead and included SHADOW OF THE CAT - a Hammer film in all but name - and THE SECRET OF BLOOD ISLAND, just for the Hammer completist). BRIDES is not a great film, but it's a good film and well worth watching (and sports by far the best transfer of the set), and CURSE and PHANTOM are both exceptional as well. I have to say, though, Troy, I'd include PARANOIAC, if only because it has some of the best visual direction Freddie Francis ever handed down. It was made at a point in his career when he hadn't grown disinterested in directing because he hadn't yet been pegged a horror director, and he gave the film his all. It shows what a masterful director (in terms of visual style) he could have been had he gotten the opportunity to direct more of the type of films he would have liked to direct.

I've never liked KISS OF THE VAMPIRE very much. Sharp does a decent job directing, but the script seems all too familiar, and the special effects are bad enough to dispel any sense of suspense in the finale.

I meant every word I said about your book. No true Bava fan could possibly be without it.

[M Sanderson]

Whatever, Fischer knew his material and knew how to bring it to life, with some well rounded characters, an excellent pace, and really lively scenes of horror.

I mean, that opening scene is just EXCEPTIONAL, with Cushing, in a monster mask, fighting against a robber, which sees his whole hideaway lab demolished. Some terrific suspense as well, with the burst water pipe exposing the body later on...

The comedy policemen were a bit naff and it was great to see 'em dropped. The characters were so (deliberately) useless anyhow, making it a certain that they wouldn't be taking down the Baron.

It's great to see Cushing pushing that character further, seizing any advantage and being utterly ruthless. The sequel, Fischer's MONSTER FROM HELL is a fascinating and logical conclusion to the story, with the Baron going senile, in a nuthouse, experimenting on a guy called the Neolithic Man, played by David Prowse. Fabulous film as well.

[Earl Roesel]

I've made it clear that the vast majority of Hammer films leave me cold, but Freddie Jones' portrayal is outstanding. By far my favorite Monster in the Hammer Frankenstein series. What sinks CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN for me...among many other things...is the dual viciousness of both creator and creation. DESTROYED corrects this and in an exceedingly clever manner to boot: Cushing is the Monster, Jones the savior.

[Troy Howarth]

There's a definite problem in Curse that arises from the concept of the actor (Lee) versus that of the script (Sangster). Sangster wrote the monster as a bute, whereas Lee tried to inject elements of pathos. I applaud Lee's attempt, and think the filmmakers should have tried to encourage this approach, but it simply doesn't jive with the script's depiction of the creature as a remorseless, murderous brute.

[Earl Roesel]

Lee's pantomime is flawless and he does succeed in exuding a certain mute eeriness...but the part is so badly written his efforts are to little effect. The Creature emerges as nothing more than a soulless, shambling psychopath. Had Sangster taken the time to justify his violence by showing it to be the product of fear and ill treatment (a la the Karloff version) it might've been a different story.

[M Sanderson]

Good points. But that was merely Hammer's starting point and they certainly would get the practise getting the characters right. There are a lot of good things in the 1st Hammer Frankenstein, most notably Cushing as the Baron.

REVENGE, DESTROYED & MONSTER FROM HELL would all have some excellent, complex, weird and twisted depictions of the monster. Not seen CREATED WOMAN - I hear it's top drawer.

CURSE does seem terribly dry these days. But it got the ball rolling.

[Troy Howarth]

I like the film on the whole, I really do, but it does have a lot of uncertainty to it. Even Fisher's direction feels a bit flat and functional in parts - he'd get better and better with the next few films, resulting in a beautifully fluid approach to The Mummy, for example.