(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“When a nobleman is murdered, a professor of the occult blames vampires, but not all is what it seems.”
There are times, gentle readers, when I’m honestly mystified over how a specific film might benefit from such a great reputation.
Now – to be fair – we’ve all experienced this at one time or another. We’ve all been the victims of word-of-mouth setting our expectations to a high bar only to be let down by our own impressions of a book, movie, or television show. Sometimes, the disappointment can be minor; and yet there are those instances wherein we consciously wonder what it is our good friends, our family members, or even our favorite critics were watching compared to what we endured. Did they see some alternate cut? Were they privy to some insider information that dramatically restructures the narrative? Whatever the case may be, we’re surprised to have been so easily convinced that what lie in wait would be a veritable classic of unimaginable proportions when – in reality – it’s simply more of the same … or – gasp! – even less.
That’s the case today as I’ll try to dissect 1935’s Mark Of The Vampire, a feature production showcasing the original bloodsucker himself – Bela Lugosi – in the guise of Count Mora, a dastardly predator who – along with his similarly-afflicted daughter Luna (Carroll Borland) – are believed to be responsible for several deaths in a tiny European village. Not all of the actions revolves around this pair – Mark’s script is somewhat weighted down by several subplots and a time jump or two (depending upon one’s perception) – but as they’re clearly tied to the film’s foundation it’s fair to suggest that it’s their story (as monsters). Also, neither have a great deal to say in here, but their shared shenanigans remain a focal point for much of the what transpires. Sadly, neither get much character development – nor even an interesting backstory – and really only exist as traditional monsters up to a point (which is critical to understanding and interpreting the finale).
So …
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“When a nobleman is murdered, a professor of the occult blames vampires, but not all is what it seems.”
There are times, gentle readers, when I’m honestly mystified over how a specific film might benefit from such a great reputation.
Now – to be fair – we’ve all experienced this at one time or another. We’ve all been the victims of word-of-mouth setting our expectations to a high bar only to be let down by our own impressions of a book, movie, or television show. Sometimes, the disappointment can be minor; and yet there are those instances wherein we consciously wonder what it is our good friends, our family members, or even our favorite critics were watching compared to what we endured. Did they see some alternate cut? Were they privy to some insider information that dramatically restructures the narrative? Whatever the case may be, we’re surprised to have been so easily convinced that what lie in wait would be a veritable classic of unimaginable proportions when – in reality – it’s simply more of the same … or – gasp! – even less.
That’s the case today as I’ll try to dissect 1935’s Mark Of The Vampire, a feature production showcasing the original bloodsucker himself – Bela Lugosi – in the guise of Count Mora, a dastardly predator who – along with his similarly-afflicted daughter Luna (Carroll Borland) – are believed to be responsible for several deaths in a tiny European village. Not all of the actions revolves around this pair – Mark’s script is somewhat weighted down by several subplots and a time jump or two (depending upon one’s perception) – but as they’re clearly tied to the film’s foundation it’s fair to suggest that it’s their story (as monsters). Also, neither have a great deal to say in here, but their shared shenanigans remain a focal point for much of the what transpires. Sadly, neither get much character development – nor even an interesting backstory – and really only exist as traditional monsters up to a point (which is critical to understanding and interpreting the finale).
So …
In the film’s beginning, Sir Karell Borotyn (Holmes Herbert) is found murdered with the usual two pinpricks of blood on his neck suggesting that he suffered his demise at the hands (and fangs!) of sanguivore. As Fate would have it, these dastardly vampires then set their sights on the dead man’s daughter Irena (Elizabeth Allan) and eventually her fiancé Fedor Vincente (Henry Wadsworth), a development that has Police Inspector Neumann (Lionel Atwill) joining forces with Professor Zelen (Lionel Barrymore) to both save the young couple and expose these vampires for all of their nefarious wrongdoings. However, Mark’s last-breaking ‘twist’ – which has to be disclosed in order to honestly critique this flick – has Zelen hypnotizing Sir Karell’s friend – Baron Otto von Zinden (Jean Hersholt) – to take the cast (and the audience by proxy) on a tour through the night that Borotyn died. As it turns out, the vampires had nothing to do with it – in fact, they’re not vampires at all but local actors hired to play the part – and Baron Otto is exposed to a somewhat hammy plot about his love for Irena forcing him to kill her father who wouldn’t agree to their coupling.
Did you catch all of that?
So rather than be an authentic Horror film, Mark Of The Vampire – as scripted by Guy Endore and Bernard Schubert – is a ‘gotcha’ movie. All of it is an elaborate ruse played out on the silver screen meant to coax a confession out of Baron Otto who – last I checked – was under the influence of hypnotism so I’m not even sure any of it would logically hold up in court. But what makes the flick an utter failure – so far as these learned eyes are concerned – is that there are entire sequences played out that don’t even involved the Baron, meaning that functionally these vignettes didn’t even need to be performed! To put it simply, if my job is to trick you – and only you – then I wouldn’t need any storyline wherein you weren’t present: these bits would be extraneous and entirely unnecessary to the purpose of my sting operation. Such things happen in here – happen a great deal – and they defy narrative logic.
Director Tod Browning – certainly an accomplished name when it comes to genre entertainment – stages sequences that require special effects to bring not one but two vampires to life. There’s one cycle involving a transformation into a bat, and there are other bits which serve to display the extent of their supernatural powers. We – the audience, when even the guilty Baron is not around – are shown evidence to prove that these Dracula are real; yet – in the finale – the rug is pulled out from under us – again, not the Baron – when they’re shown to be little more than vaudeville performers. As a consequence, the entire story falls apart, and I suspect a great many folks exit this one scratching their head as to how and why this curious failure ever got into production much less shown in theaters.
As sometimes happens, a bad film earns a good reputation; and Mark presently enjoys a mid-60’s rating (out of 100) on IMDB.com. Even more befuddling (at least to me), it retains a mid-80’s score (also out of 100) on RottenTomatoes.com, a site which is supposed to be an aggregate measurement of recognized film critics. All of that’s well and good – opinions vary, as they say – but beyond some good screen atmosphere and respectable cinematography, how can a tale that makes no coherent sense remain so revered? This isn’t the kind of production that should benefit from such acclaim – not in these parts – and I’m confounded as to how so many embrace such disjointed storytelling.
Did you catch all of that?
So rather than be an authentic Horror film, Mark Of The Vampire – as scripted by Guy Endore and Bernard Schubert – is a ‘gotcha’ movie. All of it is an elaborate ruse played out on the silver screen meant to coax a confession out of Baron Otto who – last I checked – was under the influence of hypnotism so I’m not even sure any of it would logically hold up in court. But what makes the flick an utter failure – so far as these learned eyes are concerned – is that there are entire sequences played out that don’t even involved the Baron, meaning that functionally these vignettes didn’t even need to be performed! To put it simply, if my job is to trick you – and only you – then I wouldn’t need any storyline wherein you weren’t present: these bits would be extraneous and entirely unnecessary to the purpose of my sting operation. Such things happen in here – happen a great deal – and they defy narrative logic.
Director Tod Browning – certainly an accomplished name when it comes to genre entertainment – stages sequences that require special effects to bring not one but two vampires to life. There’s one cycle involving a transformation into a bat, and there are other bits which serve to display the extent of their supernatural powers. We – the audience, when even the guilty Baron is not around – are shown evidence to prove that these Dracula are real; yet – in the finale – the rug is pulled out from under us – again, not the Baron – when they’re shown to be little more than vaudeville performers. As a consequence, the entire story falls apart, and I suspect a great many folks exit this one scratching their head as to how and why this curious failure ever got into production much less shown in theaters.
As sometimes happens, a bad film earns a good reputation; and Mark presently enjoys a mid-60’s rating (out of 100) on IMDB.com. Even more befuddling (at least to me), it retains a mid-80’s score (also out of 100) on RottenTomatoes.com, a site which is supposed to be an aggregate measurement of recognized film critics. All of that’s well and good – opinions vary, as they say – but beyond some good screen atmosphere and respectable cinematography, how can a tale that makes no coherent sense remain so revered? This isn’t the kind of production that should benefit from such acclaim – not in these parts – and I’m confounded as to how so many embrace such disjointed storytelling.
Lastly, I will say that there’s been a great deal of reporting as to the fact that a huge chunk of material was apparently censored by the studio, some of which I’ve read kinda/sorta explains a few characters and their motivations better. (For example, Count Mora has a significant scar on his face; and its explanation was excised in order to remove a subplot executives who felt morally inappropriate.) While that’s all well and good, I – as a critic – can only react to what’s provided in the existing cut: perhaps granting the finished film credit for things I didn’t see is the kind of tactic others think is acceptable. I strongly disagree, and – as such – I think Mark Of The Vampire is a vastly inferior effort.
Mark Of The Vampire (1935) was produced by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been handled by the fine folks at Warner Archive. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can still assure readers that the provided sights-and-sounds are all very good: yes, there’s the usual grain associated to pictures of the era, but there’s no glaring blemishes that distract in any meaningful way. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? The disc boasts an audio commentary that’s mildly informative and a few other items from the era.
Alas … this one is Hard To Recommend.
Look: if you’re a fan of vintage Horror, then you might get a few tickles out of 1935’s Mark Of The Vampire. While even I’ll concede that it’s great to see Lugosi at his prime doing the kind of thing only he did so well, Mark just falls apart in that last reel, so much so that I found myself backtracking to scenes to see if I’d missed something. When I realized I hadn’t – that the entire experience wasn’t so much a misdirection against one character so much as it was THE VIEWING AUDIENCE – I can to the conclusion that so much of it escaped reality … and I just can’t recommend that even though I’ll personally applaud the effort. A big mess, if you ask me, and I have to leave it at that.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Warner Archive provided me with a complimentary copy of Mark Of The Vampire (1935) – as part of their Blu-ray set of Hollywood Legends Of Horror Collection – by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
Mark Of The Vampire (1935) was produced by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been handled by the fine folks at Warner Archive. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can still assure readers that the provided sights-and-sounds are all very good: yes, there’s the usual grain associated to pictures of the era, but there’s no glaring blemishes that distract in any meaningful way. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? The disc boasts an audio commentary that’s mildly informative and a few other items from the era.
Alas … this one is Hard To Recommend.
Look: if you’re a fan of vintage Horror, then you might get a few tickles out of 1935’s Mark Of The Vampire. While even I’ll concede that it’s great to see Lugosi at his prime doing the kind of thing only he did so well, Mark just falls apart in that last reel, so much so that I found myself backtracking to scenes to see if I’d missed something. When I realized I hadn’t – that the entire experience wasn’t so much a misdirection against one character so much as it was THE VIEWING AUDIENCE – I can to the conclusion that so much of it escaped reality … and I just can’t recommend that even though I’ll personally applaud the effort. A big mess, if you ask me, and I have to leave it at that.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Warner Archive provided me with a complimentary copy of Mark Of The Vampire (1935) – as part of their Blu-ray set of Hollywood Legends Of Horror Collection – by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
RSS Feed