Happy Birthday Dad, This Review Is For You...
Since the beginning
of horror films and literature, the vampire bat is probably, in my opinion, the
most well known out of all the horror cliché’s. In fact, this device has
been used so much, that it is considered to be symbolic, to both the written
word and cinematography to this day. However, in some senses,
the vampire bat is quite real to areas such as Europe and South America, where
on occasion, they spread famine and disease. It is a sad
truth, one that is covered by Hollywood to make it
appear as
though a fairy tale. It is often put next to The Vampire, and more
famously, "Dracula". But today I will not be reviewing Dracula:
1931. Instead I will go just a bit farther, after Todd Browning's
success with Bela Lugosi (I'm saving that for later). Today I will be
reviewing, "The Vampire Bat", from 1933!
In the small village of
Kleinshloss, the locals are scared with a serial killer that is draining the
blood of his victims, and the Burgomaster Gustave Schoen is convinced that a
vampire is responsible for the deaths. The skeptical police inspector
Karl Brettschneider is reluctant to accept the existence of vampires, but the
local doctor Otto Von Newman shows literature about cases of vampirism
inclusive in Amazon. When the apple street vendor Martha Mueller is
murdered, the prime suspect becomes the slow Herman Gleib, a man with a mind of
child that loves bats. The group of vigilantes chases Herman, while Dr.
Von Newman's housemaid Georgiana is attacked by the killer.
Although more prominently a horror film, "The Vampire
Bat" kind of has a little bit of everything. At first it’s a
Mystery, then a Horror, then a Comedy, and finally a Science Fiction film.
The two genres’ that stood out to me the most were Horror and Mystery.
However beware, because this movie plays out as if it were a horror film.
And just as my review of, “The Invisible Man” tricked me, so has
this film of leading me to believe that what I was watching was a
horror flick.
But its main attraction is the perfect distraction making it seem
like one genre of film when it’s actually another. For, "The Vampire
Bat" is actually, and always has been...a Mystery Film! Just look at
the facts; first, you have many disappearances in a small town. Yes,
there is some supernatural nature to the idea as well as horror, but how the
townsfolk deduce the dilemma is executed as though from a mystery
movie! One of the occupants of the area is accused, however you
yourself aren't fully convinced that he is the actual culprit because
of the true nature this character has.
He is very shy, and though strange at times has an innocence to him that
would compel the viewer to believe that he did not commit the crimes
he was accused of. This works well in the favor of the movie
and I guess that it also balances the line between Horror and Mystery
as well. In this way, "The Vampire Bat" also reminds me of,
"The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari". There is a mystery to the plot
as well as implementing horror, the supernatural, and a dream state.
This was where the movie swayed more towards being a horror film
above all else. Each scene was distorted, warped and didn’t have a full
grasp on the proportions of things, as if you were dreaming. It is in
this way that, "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" was more of a horror
film than, "The Vampire Bat". But I'm really sidetracking
into something I could keep writing about for hours.
The movie is marketed and sold as a horror film, so I guess its false
advertising but in a positive way. Its like if you suddenly win a free
cruise to (insert tropical island name here). When you leave on the
cruise ship back home, the people there give you the cruise ship with
everything you liked on it and everything you didn't like on it even
though it wasn't included in the prize, and you like it for a while
until you realize you have nowhere to keep it, and you realize that you just
wanted the vacation instead...or something like that. So anyway, there is
also a connection between this review and last review because Majestic
Pictures, who produced this movie, was making B-Movies way before Rodger Corman
(who directed, "The Terror"...sort of) was in the business.
He made B-Movies fast and inexpensive, which was the
polar opposite of this film because they use a diagonal wipe for every transition!
Obviously this was overused because it was a new technique at
the time. It’s similar to, "The Guardians of GaHool"
film adaptation and their new discovery of the SLOW-MO shot for every single
epic fight scene. And everyone in the cinema world knows that an overuse
of an effect in a movie can be the very thing that leads it to its downfall.
Speaking of effects, the bats in the very beginning of the film look better
than in, "Dracula" from 1931, because of the film’s use of lighting.
The screen is just dark enough so that you can see the bats but not the
strings. It’s a very good illusion and is pulled off very nicely.
However, the diagonal wipe is not the only aspect of the film, because
this movie has also managed to use a device that almost all the early Vampire
movies share. They have one of the main characters at
first disbelieves the rumors that there are such things as vampires.
But this fact isn't shoved in our faces for long, or at least
not as long as, "Nosferatu" did it. Although this establishes
the super naturalism in the town is not something of the norm, it is very
redundant if you have seen something like this time and time again. As
I've said before, "film is an art form that repeats itself".
However they do add comedic relief in some way, which isn't too
overdone and for this movie adds a nice touch. However Herman, the
assistant to the victim, reminds me a little bit of the two insane people from,
"Nosferatu", and "Dracula". This type of sycophantic
side character is not new to vampire movies. One thing that is used well
is the whole aspect of hypnosis when murder is brought into a plot.
It reminds me of the character Murder Legendre, played by Bela Lugosi in
"White Zombie", made a year before; "The Vampire Bat" was
released. Although somewhat similar, Lugosi's performance is much more
memorable than this, because...well...he's Bela Lugosi! But alas, just as
Bela Lugosi does not star in this movie, neither do music. That is
to say that there is music, it’s just only in the opening and closing credits.
But I'm going to let this fault slide for now because this was very
common for the thirties. Music during the acting scenes was very new at
the time and although as the years went by it wasn't being used
regularly until the forties. Also as an added bonus I am so happy
with the supporting/lead actress, because she is not foolish or risky, rather
smart, powerful, and independent without being in your face about it. To
go even further, she has screamed the least amount of times out of all the
horror movies I’ve seen so far! And that just makes it so much better
without succumbing to the normal cliché of acting.
To
wrap this review up, The actual killer isn't that surprising
so if you’re waiting for something big and dramatic, go ahead and don't be
although there is a small twist at the end. The film is just under
an hour, so if you don't mind
a-little-bit-of-everything-but-especially-horror-film, I encourage you to check
it out! This is also to those who especially love a good mystery once and
awhile.
Verdict
I give
this film 3 nice juicy apples out of 5
Next Review: The
House on Haunted Hill 1959
1 comments:
I think Fay Wray often managed to add a certain dose intelligence to her characters with her body language or the way she recites lines (I mean, beyond what was scripted), and that this intelligence made them sexier!
Post a Comment