"The Fearless Vampire Killers" ** (out of ****)There has always been an attempt to try to combine comedy and horror. Some of the best examples include "Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein" (1948), George Hamilton in "Love At First Bite" (1979) and a pair of Mel Brooks comedies; "Young Frankenstein" (1974) and "Dracula: Dead & Loving It" (1995). But Roman Polanski's "The Fearless Vampire Killers Or Pardon Me But Your Teeth Are In My Neck" (1967), which I will refer to as "The Fearless Vampire Killers" from now on, is not quite a good film.
In retrospect I can understand why Polanski would have taken on this project, especially when we consider what he went on to accomplish. His very next film would be "Rosemary's Baby" (1968), one of the all time great psychological horror films. Years later he would also direct Johnny Depp in "The Ninth Gate" (1999). So Polanski's name is usually associated with the occult and darkness. A movie about vampires seems right up Polanski's alley.
The problem is "The Fearless Vampire Killers" is a comedy. And as talented as Polanski is, comedy is not his strong suit. He simply doesn't understand the fundamentals of screen comedy and therefore as a result this film fails.
Jack MacGowan plays Professor Abronsius, a van Helsing type, who has traveled to Transylvania with his assistant, Alfred (Polanski). After nearly freezing to death they are brought into a inn run by Shagal (Alfie Bass), who has a very pretty servant working with him, Sarah (Sharon Tate). The Professor and Alfred have come to do research on vampires. Which the townspeople refuse to admit they believe in, despite the presence of garlic everywhere. But once strange events start to happen, like the disappearance of Sarah and Shagal rising from the dead, the Professor and Alfred are on their way to find the castle of Count von Krolock (Ferdy Mayne).
As I have said, others have tried to find humor in these type of stories. So it is not impossible to do so. But Polanski doesn't know how, or at least understand how, to shoot physical comedy. He doesn't comprehend the concept of set-up and delivery. Even when dealing with physical comedy you need to establish a set-up before giving us the punchline. We must see the banana peel before the person slips on it. Polanski just wants to show us the person slipping.
And that's the best way to describe in the comedy in this film. It is just too broad with people falling, and speeding up the camera, for a 1920s slapstick look, which just doesn't work. Polanski doesn't take his time to establish the jokes. He just thinks fast action equals funny. Timing is important to comedy, no doubt, but you have to tell us why are we laughing. What makes the situation funny?
The best moments in "The Fearless Vampire Killers" are not the comedy sequences then but the more serious moments. When the film tries to create a horror atmosphere. Here Polanski is in his element. Showing us around the castle, following shadows, the eerie music...ect. Once Polanski strays away from the comedy he seems more confident in the situation. He has a better grasp what to do. If Polanski had attempted to make another "Nosferatu" he may have succeeded.
The film has a terrific look to it. The cinematography was done by Douglas Slocombe, who worked with Steven Spielberg on the original Indiana Jones trilogy and with Dario Argento on his "Phantom of the Opera" (1998). Slocombe makes this look like a serious horror film. He doesn't give the movie a cartoon-ish look. In fact everything about he technical aspects of the film are fine. Everyone seems to have went through a lot of trouble in order to get the "look" of the genre correct. That is one part of what makes it so hard to ultimately dismiss this film.
But then we have the performances. First of all, everyone is mumbling their lines. I actually had to watch this film with the English subtitles at the bottom of the screen. I couldn't make out what anyone was saying. Jack MacGowan is the worst of them all. And as for Polanski, he has no energy in this role. He is suppose to play a wimpy sidekick. Think along the lines of a Woody Allen or Bob Hope type. He is the kind of person who would be afraid of his shadow. But Polanski is like a zombie. He has no flair for the role. He is sleepwalking through the movie. He doesn't explore all the comedic possibilities of the character. Another actor in the role would have greatly improved the film.
There was one thing which I liked Polanski did. There is a sequence where he is running away from a vampire. What he doesn't realize is he has just run around in a circle. When he is face to face with the vampire he doesn't do a double-take and run away. He looks the vampire straight in the eye, very calmly, examines the situation and then runs away. It reminded me of something you'd expect from Buster Keaton. That my have been the best thing about his performance. That simply gesture, proved at the very lest, he understood something about comedy. You have to take your time once in while. If the situation is funny the laughs will come.
I also liked a sequence at the end where Alfred and the Professor are dressed as vampires at a Victorian ball, trying to make an attempt to escape. It brought to mind something out of a Bob Hope movie, say "Casanova's Big Night" (1954). So there are small touches which are funny. It just makes it sad there aren't more of these moments.
It has been over a year since I started a blog and this is actually the first time I am writing about Roman Polanski. Polanski is a very talented filmmaker. His debut film was "Knife in the Water" (1962) made in Poland. It is a good film but isn't one of his best. I prefer his later films. His best films in my opinion are "Rosemary's Baby", "Chinatown" (1974) and "The Pianist" (2002). I also enjoy his "Bitter Moon" (1992) very much.
"The Fearless Vampire Killers" is not the best movie to start your Roman Polanski experience. The only reason I reviewed this before any of his other films is because I have only recently seen this film and wanted to write about it. I didn't feel like re-watching one of his other films I wanted to experience something new. But don't let my review of this film fool you. Polanski is a very talented filmmaker. And don't let his personal life stop you from watching his films either. While, one my not like his life choices I feel that has nothing to do with his art. If you chose not to watch any of his films you will be missing out on great entertainment. Polanski's films are very dark. You could compare some of them to Ingmar Bergman's films and his examinations on the human condition. Polanski gives us piercing looks into man's soul too.
This film is a minor work. As I said in my "Whatever Works" review, sometimes great men strike out too. This and "The Tenant" (1976) are two of the more disappointing Polanski films I have seen. Had this been a serious horror film, it very well may have worked, with some re-casting.
Still I hope some of my readers, who may not have seen a Polanski film before, still search for one of his films. He is one of our more gifted filmmakers. This just isn't the place to start.
Posts
