Kicking a peach pit till I worry it's blue

[sovay]

Generally I appreciate axial tilt, but not always the resemblance between walking out for groceries at four-thirty in the afternoon of a hard-raining November and an all-night convenience store run. The brightest thing that wasn't the headlights was the scarlet maple in the war memorial.

It is incredible to me that I have been laid off for a month and gotten so little done with my theoretically free time. Mostly I seem to spend it the same kind of exhausted and seeing more doctors than anyone else. I keep reminding myself that I was supposed to be on medical leave, not vacation. It does not improve the sensation of a decaying orbit.

Immediately on concluding Lust for a Vampire (1971), spatch and I dubbed it Tits for Dracula for its plenitude of full-frontal yet curiously unsexy cleavage, as if it were enough just to have the buxom playmates of its Styrian girls' school breasting boobily all over with their tops occasionally falling down even as any of its exploitation potential as a Carmilla retelling is neutralized by the heterosexuality of its titular affair. Major props to Ralph Bates for turning himself into a horrible little gremlin of an occult-obsessed tutor who in one of the film's only original points tries to offer himself to its resurrected Mircalla Karnstein as her Renfield and is pathetically rejected, drained just enough to kill but not even to enthrall him. Major demerits for the post-dubbing of a modern pop ballad over the aforementioned central het scene from which neither of us ever recovered even a push-up of disbelief. Rob swears it was not in revenge that he introduced me to the googly-eyed marionette monster of The Giant Claw (1957).

This obituary of James Watson was like witnessing a murder from beyond the grave and he had it coming.

Comments

[sovay]

I don't really know, but the rest are very iddy and fascinating to me, even when they're bad, but somehow Hammer only hits that on much rarer occasions.

Fair! spatch has been having to listen to my not especially original but heartfelt manifesto about the novel, i.e. how important it is to me that the characters do not know for ages what is going on—that a mythical monster has moved in on their modern world—and then even when they do know, they have no guidelines for dealing with it except the trial and error of folklore and literally praying it works; the epistolary structure makes it the rational document of a deeply irrational experience and a record of the pieces no one put together until it was all over and the pattern could be properly seen. That amateur quality is absent from most of the adaptations I've seen, the 1977 Count Dracula being a notable exception. The Hammer Dracula mythos throws it completely out the window, which is part of the reason that I prefer The Brides of Dracula to their Dracula, since the former does not constantly remind me that the relation to the source material is mostly "a vampire and some names."

What I did do was write a ficlet for Laurence Payne & Adrienne Corri's characters & I'm pretty sure you were kind enough to read it.

I did! It probably is what I am remembering as your recommendation, since it made a pretty compelling argument for seeing the film.

the bts comments on that one were pretty awful all round, including for the actors forced to do the nudity, so that sounds about right.

That unfortunately tracks with the other awful behind-the-scenes story I know from the studio around this time, the rape scene in Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed—1969—which traumatized both Peter Cushing and Veronica Carlson and which Terence Fisher didn't want to shoot and which was so sloppily retconned into the script at the insistence of the producers that it has no effect whatsoever on the plot and somewhere there must be a version that cuts it out because seriously.

Haaa, oh dear. At least I have a ff button.

Not having researched the film ahead of time, we had no idea the song was coming and had more of the Sangster/Bates experience. We may have started laughing hysterically.

My memories of it are vague but very positive, and that does fit what I do recall to an exact T.

Aw. Noted for the more distantly television-watching future.

I might have to investigate the Thriller boxsets and find out why I didn't watch the Ralph Bates one, too - or if I have blocked it from my mind, lol.

Godspeed!

(I am sorry you are more ill this week; I hope it improves, or you do.)

[thisbluespirit]

my not especially original but heartfelt manifesto about the novel, i.e. how important it is to me that the characters do not know for ages what is going on—that a mythical monster has moved in on their modern world—and then even when they do know, they have no guidelines for dealing with it except the trial and error of folklore and literally praying it works; the epistolary structure makes it the rational document of a deeply irrational experience and a record of the pieces no one put together until it was all over and the pattern could be properly seen.

Yes, it's really good (and also does the iddy/fascinating thing to me). I need to re-read it sometime, because I only read it once, when I was writing Yuletide fic for calliopes_pen).

That amateur quality is absent from most of the adaptations I've seen, the 1977 Count Dracula being a notable exception.

Yes, most of them don't really have the run time for it, I suspect. I'm trying to think of the ones I've seen and it varies a lot, although the epistolary aspect is of course hard to do in visual media anyway. I don't think anyone in the BBC 2006 one knows what's going on, but that's because they merged their Van Helsing with Renfield and shut him in a cupboard till the last 6 minutes. (If you have a David Suchet in your cast, do not do this to him. It is not a plan). But Arthur sort of knows anyway because it's all his fault because he joined a blood cult to cure his syphilis & invited Dracula there in the first place. Honestly, I'm not sure how anyone in that version survived, now that I think about it. The 1968 lot do feel very amateur while struggling to combat it with science & there's not an easily established vampire lore to hand, so that's a bit nearer, but Van Helsing does come with some experience of something, it seems, if only because Dracula is aware of him, but that's a little nod to Hammer, although of course, probably also the 1931. (I was forgetting how much the 1968 draws on the 1931 - it's been a while). The others I've seen are Hammer's Drac, Count Dracula, BSD & the 1931, which I'm pretty sure you've also seen anyway. I sort of got stuck trying to find the rest after that, in my usual cheap DVD fashion, but I must keep an eye out again, because I enjoyed watching all the Dracs a lot.

TV ones are slightly more clueless, probably, though? And Hammer, as you say, just does it own thing for most of the time, indeed.

which was so sloppily retconned into the script at the insistence of the producers that it has no effect whatsoever on the plot and somewhere there must be a version that cuts it out because seriously.

Oh, gosh, you would hope so.

(I am sorry you are more ill this week; I hope it improves, or you do.)

Thank you! I had to have a filling last Thurs, which was good in some ways, but unfortunately anaesthetics and CFS do not play well together, and while it's been getting better these last few days, this is the first day I'm not quite as groggy since.