Because of its spelling, I went around years
pronouncing Vampyr as Vam-peer, a nod on my part to greater sophistication of
Euros who'd made this odd and very acquired taste of a chiller. First
familiarity came of Carlos Clarens' An Illustrated History Of The Horror Film,
published in 1967, where creepy stills promised fear cold as a grave, burial alive among highlights. Problem, of course, was seeing the thing.
Television had none of it, while further book reference (The Film Till Now)
spoke of "a film much applauded by the intelligentsia," author Paul
Rotha's seeming dismissal of Vampyr as
"very much of a museum piece." Was this as much result of awful
prints in circulation? There were versions in varied language, that is what little
could be made out from largely inaudible soundtracks. Directing Carl Dreyer had
covered bases re English, German, French editions, but much of reception was
cool, and I couldn't find indication that Vampyr got US release beyond a Film Daily
mention on 10/30/33, wherein Arthur Ziehm of General Foreign Sales Corp. was
said to have acquired rights.
Vampyr floated for decades at diminished
capacity. Histories when they mentioned it did so in terms of compromised
image. "Unfortunately the prints that are available in the United States
are not made from the master negative and so their photographic quality is rather
poor," said one 1960 reference. Ever the opportunist Raymond Rohaeur
booked Euro-passage in October 1964 to acquire rights from Vampyr's
producer/money man/star Baron Nicolas De Gunzburg (how many Barons got kicks
making movies?), who'd almost forgot Vampyr. Rohauer did a customary
slash-and-burn job of warning off "bootleg" copies of his
new-obtained pic and combed archives to upgrade elements where possible.
Subtitling whiz Herman Weinberg was hired to do a same for Vampyr. College and
festival runs evolved once Weinberg finished his work in January 1968. Variety
announced a Paris
"first-run" in May, 1968, on a festival menu with Buster Keaton's The
Cameraman. Fleetwood Films "will reissue (Vampyr) this (1968) winter in a
more complete form than has ever been shown in the US," said Variety. Dreyer's
would become known as a deepest-dish chiller and challenge for watchers to stay
awake. There's nothing in horror's universe like it, but patience is required.
Moments of Vampyr top any effect thrill-makers have achieved. Now that prints
are decent, we can fuller appreciate promise put forth by Clarens' book images
of fifty years ago.
When I ran my 16mm print of VAMPYR in 1980 at the original Cineforum in Toronto (it was at 12 Mercer Street, building gone now, down where the CN Tower is) for the first time I saw the film in a long narrow space with a full ceiling to floor screen. The sides met the walls.
I was amazed at how powerful the photography became in that setting. Dreyer's almost constantly moving camera created an stunning illusion of depth. I felt myself pulled into the image. It became a cinema hallucination.
As I said previously motion pictures from this time period were made as films not as horror films. To view them as such negates much of their real power.
I had always liked the film but seeing it in that setting gave it an energy that it had lacked in more conventional spaces.
If you had some confusion about the correct pronunciation of “vampyr”, then imagine my own when, as a barely literate ten-year-old kid, I was confronted with the word “wurdalak”, a Russian term for to the “undead”, in reference to a ghoulish character portrayed by Boris Karloff in Mario Bava’s 1963 BLACK SABBATH.
This post made me decide to buy the Blu-ray. I'm glad I did. My 16mm of VAMPYR was very good. It ran a little over 60 minutes. This version runs 73 minutes. Everything about this restoration is superlative. I projected the film on a 9 by 12 foot screen. I also darkened the light considerably as the factory setting is way too bright (brought it down to minus 30). If you have not done this yet yourself you should. I mentioned to professional photographer Barrie Schwortz (from whom I obtained my SHROUD OF TURIN replica) that I was doing this. He stated that as a professional he, himself, had also found the settings way too bright.
The resulting change in the impact of the image is spectacular. Originally I was miffed because this version does not include THE MASCOT by Starevitch which is a favourite film. Well, the bonus material on Carl Th. Dreyer more than compensates for that. I had always thought Dreyer filmed VAMPYR after Tod Browning's DRACULA. I was surprised to discover the film was in the can before that film went into production.
One BIG difference between films of that era (1915--1960) is that motion pictures were produced and directed largely by adult men and women. This became particularly apparent when I listened to Dreyer speak about his work. At the same time I reflected on how impossible it would be in today's climate for that man and people like him to create films of the high caliber they did.
An unexpected piece of illumination came in when Dreyer talked about THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC. He spoke of the snide manner of the priests towards Joan. That snide manner is endemic in academia. If we want to see how the Sanhedrin treated Jesus we need only look at Dreyer's JOAN. He nailed it.
I probably would have passed on this title had I not read your posting. Again, thank you for turning me on to something I otherwise would have missed. I also noted that the narrator of the film on Dreyer pronounced "VAMPYR" as "VAMPEER."
5 Comments:
When I ran my 16mm print of VAMPYR in 1980 at the original Cineforum in Toronto (it was at 12 Mercer Street, building gone now, down where the CN Tower is) for the first time I saw the film in a long narrow space with a full ceiling to floor screen. The sides met the walls.
I was amazed at how powerful the photography became in that setting. Dreyer's almost constantly moving camera created an stunning illusion of depth. I felt myself pulled into the image. It became a cinema hallucination.
As I said previously motion pictures from this time period were made as films not as horror films. To view them as such negates much of their real power.
I had always liked the film but seeing it in that setting gave it an energy that it had lacked in more conventional spaces.
Very strange movie. I saw it on TCM a few years ago, and enjoyed it... But I remember nothing about it.
If you had some confusion about the correct pronunciation of “vampyr”, then imagine my own when, as a barely literate ten-year-old kid, I was confronted with the word “wurdalak”, a Russian term for to the “undead”, in reference to a ghoulish character portrayed by Boris Karloff in Mario Bava’s 1963 BLACK SABBATH.
Many pronounce "VAMPYR" as "vampeer." It's "Vampire."
This post made me decide to buy the Blu-ray. I'm glad I did. My 16mm of VAMPYR was very good. It ran a little over 60 minutes. This version runs 73 minutes. Everything about this restoration is superlative. I projected the film on a 9 by 12 foot screen. I also darkened the light considerably as the factory setting is way too bright (brought it down to minus 30). If you have not done this yet yourself you should. I mentioned to professional photographer Barrie Schwortz (from whom I obtained my SHROUD OF TURIN replica) that I was doing this. He stated that as a professional he, himself, had also found the settings way too bright.
The resulting change in the impact of the image is spectacular. Originally I was miffed because this version does not include THE MASCOT by Starevitch which is a favourite film. Well, the bonus material on Carl Th. Dreyer more than compensates for that. I had always thought Dreyer filmed VAMPYR after Tod Browning's DRACULA. I was surprised to discover the film was in the can before that film went into production.
One BIG difference between films of that era (1915--1960) is that motion pictures were produced and directed largely by adult men and women. This became particularly apparent when I listened to Dreyer speak about his work. At the same time I reflected on how impossible it would be in today's climate for that man and people like him to create films of the high caliber they did.
An unexpected piece of illumination came in when Dreyer talked about THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC. He spoke of the snide manner of the priests towards Joan. That snide manner is endemic in academia. If we want to see how the Sanhedrin treated Jesus we need only look at Dreyer's JOAN. He nailed it.
I probably would have passed on this title had I not read your posting. Again, thank you for turning me on to something I otherwise would have missed. I also noted that the narrator of the film on Dreyer pronounced "VAMPYR" as "VAMPEER."
Post a Comment
<< Home