Part 3: Pause, Particulars, Push

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

This painting was nearly three years in the making. But that doesn’t mean it is the ONLY painting I created in that period. I always have two or more paintings underway at any given time. I’m not a person who gets bored easily, but working exclusively on the same painting for too long can become monotonous and tedious. Eventually, you want nothing more to do with it.

Working on a painting that you’ve lost interest in will lead to poor quality work and outright mistakes, which could effectively ruin it. The last thing you want is to screw up something you’ve invested hundreds of hours in. So you take a break, and move onto something else. Because of this painting’s size and irregular dimensions, it was very difficult and time-consuming to work on. Needless to say, I took quite a few breaks.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

At this point, the painting is approximately 60% complete. The remaining elements are the border, the script, the columns and small details like the candles. Doesn’t sound like much, but that border? Tremendous amount of work.

The first thing I tackled was the background script. Two different scripture verses, pertinent to the painting’s overall message (which will be explained in Part 4):

Matthew 12:30

Revelation 1:17

I love paintings with black backgrounds. There is a problem with working on black, though. The graphite paper I use to transfer my image design isn’t visible on the black paint. So this begs the question, Do I want to free-hand all that script? Or can I MacGyver another way to transfer it? So check out my very simple solution.

January 16, 2012

After securing my template in the correct position, I used a soft-leaded graphite pencil (6B – a softer lead is quicker to apply and leaves a darker, more transferable material than a harder lead such as 2B) to leave a layer of graphite on the back of the paper. Then, I simply traced the lettering as usual, leaving a now-visible imprint on my canvas. Why did the graphite pencil leave a mark when the graphite paper didn’t? The graphite paper has a waxy coating: there is very little graphite in the product at all. You can run your hand over a tracing made with graphite paper and it won’t smudge. But run your hand over a tracing made with a graphite pencil, and you’ll have a mess to clean up.

Which brings me to a word of caution. If you use this method of transfer, just be aware that the pencil will not only smudge if you touch it, it can potentially mix with the paint you put on top of it, muddying the colour a little. This shouldn’t pose too much of a problem though, especially if you are planning on two coats of paint.

With the script traced onto the canvas, next step was paint.

I repeated the same process for the second verse above the horses.

Next up was tackling that border.

Because the border slips in behind the columns, I painted it first, beginning with the two hues of green and the black centre strip, followed by the crisscrossing green, beige and blue stylized leaves in the middle. Followed by … those medallions. The most difficult thing for an artist with an unsteady hand is to paint something right at the edge of the canvas. The precious stones, the filigree, the writing – not exactly what I would call ‘fun’. But hey, work can’t always be fun.

Now, I’m not a big “experimenter”, but for this piece, I was determined to have gold leafing. Note to any aspiring artists, or anyone wanting to try their hand at gold leaf: Do NOT buy your leafing and sizing from an art store that doesn’t know what “sizing” is and has to order your supplies online.

Before I tried it myself, I watched dozens of videos demonstrating various gold leafing techniques. Two facts were unchanging – the sizing turns sticky, and the gold leaf is ridiculously fragile. My gold leaf? Couldn’t even tear it. I had to use scissors to cut pieces off. The sizing barely got tacky enough for the leafing to stick.

And when it was dry and I tried to brush off the excess (keeping in mind, the videos all showed using gentle, circular motions with a large, dry brush to remove the extra), the overlapping leaf wouldn’t tear (again, had to cut it with a very sharp knife, which was difficult as I didn’t want to ruin the finished paint underneath), but wherever it was stuck down with the sizing, bits of it kept flaking off, leaving little bare patches. Beyond frustrating. BUT, stubborn as I am, I wanted gold leafed medallions. So after much fretting and a little finagling, a second application of gold leafing left me with an acceptable result.

The final element of the border, was the writing. There’s a lot of it, so let me reference it for you.

To the right of each medallion, in the upper dark green stripe, are the 12 Tribes of Israel. — Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Zebulun, Issachar, Dan, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Joseph, and Benjamin. Each of the 12 Tribes is assigned a specific stone in the Breastplate (Exodus 28:17). I showed you my reference chart in Part 1, illustrating what the stone is, its colour, its order (in the breastplate), and its corresponding tribe. The medallions hold the breastplate stones.

In the lower light green stripes (of the TOP border), are found the Seven Spirits of God (Revelation 2:1) — Grace, Truth, Knowledge and the Fear of the Lord, Wisdom and Understanding, Judgement, Council and Power and Fire.

In the upper light green stripes (of the BOTTOM border), are listed the Seven Churches (Revelation 2:1) — Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.

Note: The Seven Spirits are placed so that they match their corresponding Church.

The remaining writing on the painting is scripture verses, pertinent to the painting’s message.

In the TOP border: Proverbs 1:7 – “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.”

Joel 3:14 – “Multitudes, multitudes in the Valley of Decision! For the day of the Lord is near in the Valley of Decision.”

Hebrews 6:4 – “It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the Word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, to their loss they are crucifying Jesus again.” Note: I modified the end of this verse due to space restrictions. However, the intended meaning has not been lost.

In the BOTTOM border: Revelation 22:12 – “Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.”

Revelation 10:11 – “You must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, languages and kings.”

Revelation 22:8 -  “I, Wendy, am the one who heard and saw these things.” This again, is a modified verse. John wrote the book of Revelation, I created this painting, so I have substituted my name for John’s.

I used a printed template for the Tribe names, Seven Churches and Seven Spirits, but free-handed the rest with a brush.

Finally, we come to the columns. I’m not even going to tell you how many base coats are on those things. Suffice it to say, more than ten, which is A LOT. And do you know how difficult it is to find tape that doesn’t bleed under the edges? Very difficult. I still haven’t found a tape that works well. For this painting I tried Scotch-Blue Painter’s Tape for Delicate Surfaces. While it worked a thousand times better than regular masking tape, there was still a small amount of paint bleed which required some touch-up work.

I wanted marble columns, so I went reference-hunting to find just the right kind of marble. I considered the look of different marbles themselves (ex. veining and colour variations), as well as how their colour would compliment the rest of the piece. I finally settled on this beautiful Spanish orangy-cream-coloured crema valencia marble.

To create the faux finish of marble, I used three colours of paint (a light, medium and dark), a crumpled piece of plastic wrap, and my fingers. When it comes to achieving a particular textured look, the best thing to do is experiment. You never know what materials and techniques will help create the finish you want. And never underestimate what you can do with your bare hands!

One feature I wanted the columns to have was carved lily capitals, designed in the Corinthian inverted bell style. 1 Kings 7:19 – “The capitals on top of the pillars in the portico were in the shape of lilies.” This is in reference to the pillars (columns) of Solomon’s temple. Now, while “in the shape of lilies” likely was in reference to the Corinthian style (the inverted bell also resembles a blooming lily), I also love the look of ornate, carved capitals. This is where I reused the lily design I showed you in Part 1. I separated the lily blossoms and incorporated them into the capitals.

At this point, with the columns complete, I still couldn’t decide whether or not adding vines would compliment or detract from the painting. The vines were part of the original design, but I was so pleased with my marble columns, that I was afraid the vines would destroy their beautiful, elegant look. While I wrestled with this decision, I went ahead and painted the seven candles along the bottom border.

The painting looked great when everything was finished, minus the vines.

I wanted to leave it just the way it was. BUT, this painting was designed and created with a specific message in mind. When it comes to creating a painting, you’re always going to have to sacrifice something. And I believe, when choosing between aesthetic and message, message is always more important. SO, even though aesthetically I prefer the bare columns, the vines were necessary to tie the entire piece together.

After choosing a leaf shape and colour I liked, I sketched the vines, transferred them onto the columns and began basing them.

Here you can see the progression of the vines. Left Column: Shows the first two stages of development. Right Column: Shows completed vines.

Some last-minute detailing and touch-up work, a step back to survey the landscape — making absolutely sure there was nothing else I wanted or needed to add — and at last, the painting was finished.

There are hundreds of hours of work in this piece. It certainly didn’t happen overnight. But to finally have a finished product; to be able to look back to when it was just an idea, then how the idea developed and evolved? It was worth every second that I poured into it.

A true artist shares a little piece of his/her soul when they paint. It’s what gives the painting LIFE. You can breathe spirit into the figures, and instill meaning in the most insignificant detail. You can give something that is two-dimensional and inanimate a voice of its own. For anytime someone looks at your painting, the painting will speak to them.

Painting is not just a form of expression. It’s not all about emotional stimulation. A work of art should have substance. It’s not just something pretty to look at, but something that is important and carries a message. It should make you ask questions — and if it’s good art, it will give you the answers to those questions. An artist paints what words cannot describe.

There is a difference between a painter and an artist. A painting either exists, or it lives. Painters paint pictures. Artists paint moments, thoughts and feelings. An artist can cross all boundaries, and bridge the gap between the dimensions.

A true objet d’art isn’t confined to the constructs of our visible reality, it goes above and beyond that which we understand, that which we see, and that which we know. Be creative, be bold, don’t let the world tell you no. Paint what you love, and you’ll love what you paint.

Series concluded in Part 4: Symbolic Representation …

Years ago, in the golden age of Hollywood, movies were promoted with glorious, colourful posters, illustrated by artists who still worked with paint and a brush. Film posters are a somewhat under-appreciated genre of art. But some of the world’s most talented artists made their living creating images for movie posters.

I’m passionate about art and I love horror films, so these posters from a bygone era are something I can really get excited about.

There have been many masterpiece horror films produced in the last 80+ years. Some accompanied by very impressive posters. The 1930′s and ’40s saw the creation of some absolutely stunning works of art created to draw in potential paying customers for some of the most iconic, classic films ever made. From the well known: Frankenstein (1931), Dracula (1931), and The Invisible Man (1933); to the slightly lesser known but equally brilliant: The Black Cat (1934), White Zombie (1932) and The Corpse Vanishes (1942).

As with any type of art, there are particular artists and individual works of art that stand out above the rest. I’ve selected six posters by three different artists that are what I consider to be the some of the finest examples of movie poster art in the horror genre.

This is one of my favourite movie posters. Produced by Paramount in 1933, “Supernatural” featured beautiful Hollywood starlet Carole Lombard, the highest paid actor in Hollywood at the time. This is the American release poster, created by Paramount’s chief art director Vincent Trotta and his assistant Maurice Kallis.

Photo of Lombard which served as reference and inspiration for the poster.

While perhaps not the most flattering depiction of the actress, you have to admit that the poster is striking. It’s an attention grabber. The crystal ball, glowing through her fingers, leaves an eerie cast of light on her face, that somehow for all its grotesqueness, still leaves her looking radiant.

Bold, bright colours, strong, readable words, nice composition, lots of detail but not cluttered with unnecessary props or information — executing this design took skill. Remember, the purpose of movie posters was to give viewers a reason to want to see the film. The poster must not only be visually appealing, but give you an idea of what the movie is about. Poster art is no different than any other form of art. It requires thought and preparation. There are certain required elements as well as room for creativity.

Karoly Grosz

The next two posters are both the works of a single artist – Karoly Grosz, a prominent Universal Studios artist who was responsible for creating posters for the most famous of Universal’s monster films including Frankenstein, The Invisible Man and Dracula.

My personal favourite of the two is “Murders in the Rue Morgue” (1932). The colours are just spectacular. The contrast between the glowing green and the black background create a spooky, haunting atmosphere and Lugosi’s expression sets the mood very well.

The other poster, “The Mummy” (1931), while not as eye-catching or visually attractive (in my opinion), would go on to become the most expensive US film poster of all time, when it fetched a remarkable $435,500 at a Sotheby’s auction in 1997. It has since been demoted to the “second” most highly valued movie poster of all time by the sale of the international version of “Metropolis” (1927), purchased in 2005 for a staggering $690,000.

Anselmo Ballester

“The Face Behind the Mask” (1941) – Left: Original Artwork – Right: Finished Poster

Quite possibly the greatest poster artist of all time is Italian born Anselmo Ballester. After attending the Academy of Fine Arts in Rome, Ballester worked in the cinema for both American and Italian film studios until the early 1960′s. He is best known for his superb work done while employed as the head artist of the independent Italian production company, Minerva Films.

Original Artwork by Anselmo Ballester

This is one of two different poster designs Ballester created for the Argentinian film “El Extrano Caso Del Hombre Y El Bestia” (The Strange Case of the Man and the Beast), a Mario Soffici ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ film from 1956. I absolutely love this image. The graphic is bold, impressive and very effective. The modelling of the two faces merging into one has been executed beautifully in this more classical style of poster design. What makes this piece so striking is Ballester’s use of chiaroscuro, which is the modelling of light and dark to create strong contrast. In this piece, the contrast is between the subject and the background.

Ballester exhibited two very distinctive styles of poster painting. A classic, bold, graphic style, like the one above, and a more traditional, realistic, illustrative style, as seen in this Italian poster created for the film “Notre Dame” (1939). The latter style has softer, smoother, cleaner lines, and its composition is drifting towards that of a traditional painting rather than a graphic image.

Ballester designed and painted hundreds of posters, touching every genre of film. This Italian website has a wonderful collection of his incredible work. If you get a chance, take the time to browse through it.

http://www.mat.uniroma1.it/~procesi/ballester-web/ballester-web.html

What are some of the things I love most about Ballester’s work? The wonderful, highly saturated colour of his bold, graphic works, and the subtle gradation of colour in his illustrative pieces. His impeccable attention to detail, from the beautiful, delicate modelling of a woman’s face, to the texture and depth of the fabric that clothes her. And even though Ballester’s brush strokes are often visible, they don’t leave the piece looking “sloppy” which is often the impression they give.

Original artwork by Anselmo Ballester

There is nothing amateurish about Ballester’s work. His skill and passion shine through in every single work of art he ever produced.

“To become a creator of film posters, it is of course, necessary to have some of the innate qualities of a painter – to know how to set a pose, to have some skill at drawing, to have a sense of colour, to possess some imagination and an ability to appreciate beauty . In your childhood, and continuing through your whole life, you must learn to fill your eyes and your soul with the marvelous nature of things and with the way the great painters have passed them on. And it is necessary to study passionately, to always draw and paint everything from the truth. Then you can let your imagination run free. Whether you are creating a work of art, or a more humble advertising poster, you must be able to attract the interest of the public, to satisfy both the most refined people and the roughest, who are the majority.”

~Excerpt from Anselmo Ballester’s diary

Anselmo Ballester passed away at the age of 77 on September 22, 1974. Today marks the 38th anniversary of his death. This incredible artist deserves to be remembered for his magnificent artwork. He is truly a master second to none, not only in the field of film poster art, but as an artist period.

With a little appreciation for our passions in life, we are limited only by our imagination.

Bible Engravings, 1866

His first book was published at the age of 15. A year later, he was the highest paid illustrator in France. During his lifetime, he was literally the most famous artist in the world.

One of the most prolific artists of the 19th century is the French-born (Paul) Gustave Doré. Born in Strasbourg on January 6, 1832, he died in Paris, January 23, 1883.

A visit to Paris when Doré was only 15 years old led to his hiring by publisher Charles Philipon who was so amazed upon viewing the young boy’s talent it’s said that he almost cried. In 1848, Philipon launched a new humour weekly, Journal pour Rire (The Journal For Laughing), and 16-year-old Doré was the featured artist, producing lithographic caricatures. He would continue to build his illustrious career with illustrations for such famous literary works as Dante’s Divine Comedy, Cervantes’ Don Quixote and his only U.S. commission — Edgar Allan Poe’s The Raven. He even created 238 engravings for the best-selling book of all time, The Bible.

Although turning his hand to all forms of art — painting, sculpture and printmaking — Doré’s glorious wood-engravings are what he is best known for. Sometimes dark and reflective, but always stunningly executed, Doré’s wood-engraved book illustrations evoke a strong sense of atmosphere and mood. His work is immediately recognizable to the eye of both critics and laymen alike.

His ability to capture not only the tangible aspects of a scene, but also the spirit of the moment is a rare and very under-appreciated skill in the art world.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

~LONDON~

Westminster Stairs — Steamers Leaving ~London

A collaboration with his friend, journalist Blanchard Jerrold, “London: A Pilgrimage”, published in 1872, is generally regarded as Doré’s greatest achievement. And it’s certainly not difficult to see why.

A Ball at the Mansion House ~London

Doré’s illustrations record and reflect the London that he and Jerrold explored in 1869 – the rich, the poor, the night life, the daytime grind, the opulent glamour and the filthy slums – in short, every aspect of the lives of Londoners. It’s an intimate look at all the great city had to offer.

Inside the Docks ~London

Bishopsgate Street ~London

Westminster Abbey — The Choir ~London

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

~ DANTE’S DIVINE COMEDY~

Dante’s Divine Comedy is comprised of three books: Inferno, Purgatory and Paradise. The first of Doré’s illustrations (for Inferno) were published in 1861. His illustrated Purgatory and Paradise were published later, in 1868, and were released as a single volume.

“This one, who ne’er from me shall be divided, kissed me upon the mouth all palpitating. Galeotto was the book and he who wrote it. That day no farther did we read therein.” ~Inferno

“Then stretched he both his hands unto the boat; whereat my wary Master thrust him back, saying, “Away there with the other dogs!”” ~Inferno

“He reached the gate, and with a little rod he opened it, for there was no resistance.” ~Inferno

“And shadows, that appeared things doubly dead, from out the sepulchres of their eyes betrayed wonder at me, aware that I was living.” ~Purgatory

“Youthful and beautiful in dreams methought I saw a lady walking in a meadow, gathering flowers and singing.” ~Purgatory

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

It is said that Doré’s true passion was painting and that he was determined to be known as a great painter. Unfortunately, in his home country of France (and by many of his peers), he would never be accepted as such.

Doré believed that “art which said nothing, which conveyed no idea, albeit perfect in form and colour, missed the highest quality and raison d’etre (reason for being or the purpose that justifies a thing’s existence) of art.”

Many of Doré’s contemporaries disagreed with his assessment of art. They pointed to his lack of formal training and criticized Doré’s skill as an artist. According to Blanchard Jerrold, who wrote of discussions between Doré and men such as French poet and art critic Pierre Jules Théophile Gautier, “The painters said he could not paint.”

But the obvious talent on display in Doré’s paintings suggest that his critics may have been motivated by professional jealousy. His talent was indeed, as many of Dore’s friends expressed, “on the level with the masterpieces of the Italian masters of the sixteenth century.” Whether viewing his harmonious paintings or strikingly bold engravings, one fact is abundantly clear – Gustave Doré, to this day, remains one of the greatest artists the world has ever known.

“I know, it’s an incredible story. I of all people know this. And you won’t believe me – no, not at first. But I’m going to tell you the whole thing. Then you’ll believe – because you must, you must believe.”

I think everyone who loves the Twilight Zone has a favourite episode – that quintessential story that strikes a chord. Maybe it’s the subject or the moral, a particular character that you identify with, or even its relevance to a social, political or historical event. Whatever the reason, every fan has that one episode he/she just can’t live without.

On November 4, 1960 — 52 years ago today — my favourite Twilight Zone episode, “The Howling Man,” first aired. Written by Charles Beaumont and flawlessly directed by Douglas Heyes, “The Howling Man” is the tale of a man who comes face-to-face with the Devil, and failing to recognize him, looses him upon the earth.

The prostrate form of Mr. David Ellington, scholar, seeker of truth and, regrettably, finder of truth. A man who will shortly arise from his exhaustion to confront a problem that has tormented mankind since the beginning of time. A man who knocked on a door seeking sanctuary and found instead the outer edges of the Twilight Zone.

The story is set just after the end of the First World War. David Ellington, played by H.M. Wynant, stumbles upon a monastery while on a hiking trip. He’s sick and exhausted and is looking for a place to rest. But the monks of the hermitage — “The Brotherhood of Truth” — are reluctant to offer him any assistance. He soon learns the cause of their hesitation — a prisoner they have locked in a cell. This “man”, who howls incessantly, turns out (unbeknownst to Ellington of course) to be the Devil.

“What you saw was no man, Mr. Ellington. It is the Devil himself!”

Robin Hughes is superb in his sympathetic portrayal of the Devil/Howling Man. He has Ellington, and the audience, hooked right from the very beginning. When Ellington comes face-to-face with him, the man begs for help.

“In the name of mercy, help me. You’re not one of them?”

“They’re mad, Mr. Ellington, all of them, raving mad.”

He weaves a very moving tale of how and why Brother Jerome (head of the Brotherhood) imprisoned him, and when he stares pitifully through the window of his cell and woefully asks, “Tell me, is it wrong to kiss?”, it melted MY heart.

Ellington buys the Devil’s story and goes to Jerome for answers. Jerome attempts to convince Ellington to leave the hermitage, saying that he is suffering from delirium. No man is imprisoned there, he insists. But Ellington sees through the charade and quips, “Honest men make unconvincing liars.”

In an effort to keep Ellington from going to the police, Brother Jerome (played brilliantly by the legendary actor John Carradine) decides to come clean and reveal the identity of the “howling man” he has locked in the cell.

“What you saw in the cell is Satan. Otherwise known as the Dark Angel, Ahriman, Asmodeus, Belial, Diabolus, the Devil. You asked for the truth. Now you have it. You do believe me, don’t you?”

Ellington says he believes, but Jerome knows he is lying. So Jerome tells him of how the “howling man” came to be captured and imprisoned at the hermitage.

Carradine, who looks not unlike Moses stepping off the set of “The Ten Commandments”, delivers a gloriously powerful performance, one full of energy and conviction. One of my favourite lines from the episode is spoken by Jerome as he explains what the Brotherhood of Truth is founded upon. “Truth is our dogma. We believe it to be man’s greatest weapon against the Devil, who is the father of all lies.”

When Ellington questions how they can keep the Devil locked up, wide-eyed Carradine lifts his staff above his head and dramatically exclaims: “With the Staff of Truth!” Interesting to note that in Beaumont’s original story the Brothers carried crosses, but director Douglas Heyes felt the symbol of the cross was decidedly too Christian and opted for a more broadly acceptable prop – the shepherd’s crook. Understandably, Beaumont was not pleased with the change, but much to my delight, the Staff of Truth is still evocative of Christianity and fits beautifully into the story.

Ellington wonders if perhaps Jerome has made a mistake.

Ellington: “How did you recognize him? He doesn’t look evil.”

Jerome: “The devil hath power to assume a pleasing shape.”

Ellington points out that there is still great suffering in the world: murders, robberies – even as they are speaking, he says, people are starving. Jerome replies, “The suffering man was meant to endure. We cause most of our own griefs. We need no help from him.”

Ellington convinces Jerome that he does indeed believe him, and a satisfied Jerome allows him to stay the night. Once in his room, Ellington waits for the monk who is sitting with him to fall asleep. Thoroughly convinced that the monks are indeed mad, he heads straight for the Howling Man’s cell to free him.

Devil: “You’ve come! Good!”

Ellington: “What do you want me to do?”

Devil: “Lift off the wooden bolt.”

Ellington: “Is this all that holds you in?”

Devil: “Yes, lift it off!”

Ellington: “Well, why haven’t you done it yourself?”

Devil: “Please, there’s no time for talk! Mr. Ellington, in the name of mercy.  If you fail now, they’ll kill both of us. Don’t you understand that?”

As I’m sure many of us would do, Ellington removes the Staff of Truth from the cell door, and is promptly subdued by a no longer helpless Devil.

And here, at the climax of the episode, we see the genius of director Douglas Heyes at work – the Devil’s transformation from man to monster. This transformation is not the standard “cross dissolve transformation” used in movies and TV shows at the time. Heyes wanted the Devil to be moving, not standing still, while the makeup was changing.

The first stage of the transformation, though, was actually a very clever trick with light (one that would be impossible to achieve if the episode had been in colour). When Robin Hughes exits the cell, the camera zooms in on his face and there is a flash of light.

As explained by Heyes in an interview with Marc Scott Zicree, an infrared-sensitive makeup was applied under Hughes’ normal makeup. “We see a physical change in Hughes thanks to the flash of light.”

The full transformation was achieved by filming Hughes in each stage of makeup, walking quickly down the entire length of a long corridor, then splicing each shot together using the pillars Hughes was disappearing behind as the transition points.

This is, without a doubt, a very impressive and effective scene, but it’s one that Beaumont wasn’t entirely pleased with. Said Heyes,

“Beaumont just wanted an expression on Wynant’s face as he chased after him and reached up as the man went over a wall and all he wanted was to see the hand touching a cloven hoof just as it went over  the wall. And when I did the literal translation of showing him visually turn into the devil, Beaumont didn’t like that. He liked the way he’d written it and that was what he wanted.”

And with that, the Devil vanishes in a cloud of smoke.

Ellington: “I didn’t believe you. I saw him and didn’t recognize him.”

Jerome: “That is Man’s weakness, and Satan’s strength.”

The story fast-forwards now to a much older David Ellington. After years of searching, he has finally recaptured the Devil and is making preparations to send him back to Brother Jerome at the hermitage. But unfortunately for Ellington and the rest of the world, his housekeeper is just as unbelieving as he himself once was, and the episode closes with her unlocking the door and letting the Devil out to roam the earth once more.

In the ending of the original short story, Beaumont leaves doubt in David Ellington’s mind as to whether or not he actually had this experience or simply dreamed it in his weak, sickened state. The story ends with Ellington receiving a card from one of the Brothers at the hermitage which simply reads: “Rest now, my son. We have him back with us again.”

While I can appreciate Beaumont’s original creation, I strongly feel that the ending of the TZ adaptation is better. It was Ellington’s unbelief and doubt that led to him releasing the Howling Man and in the episode it becomes his responsibility to recapture the evil he has let loose on the world. He dedicates his life to righting the wrong he has done and eventually his determination and perseverance pays off — he does indeed catch the Devil.

In the original, Ellington takes no responsibility whatsoever. He isn’t even certain anything happened, and it is the Brothers who must go out and essentially clean up the mess he has made. I don’t think that’s the right message to send — you make a mistake, don’t worry, someone else will look after it for you. That isn’t how it works, I’m afraid. Take responsibility for your own actions. Right your own wrongs. If you make a mistake, do your very best to fix it.

In the promo for “The Howling Man”, Serling describes the story as being, “designed for the young in heart but the strong of nerve.” How would you feel if, like David Ellington, you let the Devil out of his cell? If you had to live with the knowledge that you are now responsible for his subsequent actions? And that it’s up to you to catch him and lock him up again? Yes, perhaps this tale is bordering on the extreme, but I find it very effective. That’s what makes the Twilight Zone such an exceptional program — it presents a far-out example that teaches a lesson which can be applied in many different ways and in various scenarios.

“Truth is our dogma. We believe it to be man’s greatest weapon against the Devil, who is the father of all lies.” Seek the Truth in everything you do. Had David Ellington taken the time to do this, he’d have run from that cell, not to it.

As Brother Jerome said, it’s difficult to recognize evil, which has the ability to assume many pleasing shapes. We’re all susceptible to being fooled if we refuse to pay attention and ignore what’s often right in front of us. The Truth can be found, if you’re willing to search for Him. Lesson to be learned, not only in the Twilight Zone, but in every corner of God’s earth.

Ancient folk saying: ‘You can catch the Devil, but you can’t hold him long.’ Ask Brother Jerome. Ask David Ellington. They know, and they’ll go on knowing to the end of their days and beyond – in the Twilight Zone.

How many are your works, Lord! In wisdom you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures. There is the sea, vast and spacious, teeming with creatures beyond number—living things both large and small.

~ Psalm 104:24

Sweet as can be, this is my beautiful cross fox, Paintbrush. She’s a real honey. Yes, her name is Paintbrush. No, it was definitely not my idea to call her that.

When times are rough and I find myself grasping for something positive in a sea of negativity, all I have to do is look at her, one of the most beautiful of all God’s creatures, and as I marvel at His handiwork I realize that things are never as bad or hopeless as they seem. There is always hope, even in the deepest, darkest times. There is evidence of God and His infinite love all around us, we just have to be willing to open our eyes and see it.

For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. Then you will call on me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.

~ Jeremiah 29:11

While human impulse may be to focus on the bad, search for the good instead. More often than not you’ll find that God has given you exactly what you need. Be thankful for what you have, and more importantly WHO you have, for there is always some good to be found no matter where you look.

Trust in the Lord. He’s the only one that’ll never let you down. When you leave things in His hands, only then will you truly find peace.

In the multitude of my thoughts within me thy comforts delight my soul.

~ Psalm 94:19

Quoth the raven, “Nevermore”.

An iconic line from a famous poem.

Written by a man who was orphaned at the age of three, lost the love of his life to tuberculosis, and then died himself at only 40 years old, it’s instantly recognizable to nearly everyone who reads it. It is the haunting refrain of Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Raven”.

“The Raven” was published on January 29, 1845 in the weekly newspaper the New York Evening Mirror. It was reprinted a month later in both an issue of American Review and The Liberator, as well as countless other publications around the United States in the months following. It is arguably the most famous of Poe’s writings and made him a nationwide household name in a very short period of time.

Today marks the 168^th anniversary of the publication of “The Raven”. This is not only my favourite poem, but also, in my opinion, one of the greatest works of literature ever written, surpassed only by the Bible and Dante’s Divina Commedia. In a mere 108 lines broken down into 18 stanzas, Poe captures the very essence of a man’s soul. He weaves an unforgettable tale of captivating beauty, undying love and heart-wrenching despair.

Much like the narrator in the poem, I too have been haunted by the raven since the moment I first heard that glorious opening line… “Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary…” He bewitched me, and now I can recite “The Raven” from memory, in its entirety. From the first stanza to the last, and from last to first. An impressive, yet completely worthless skill.

Edgar Allan Poe will forever be remembered and revered for this literary masterpiece. It is truly a work of excellence. But there was another man who left an indelible mark of his own on “The Raven”. That man was French artist, Gustave Doré, who in 1882, began his only U.S. Commission – engraving illustrations for “The Raven”. Poe may have written a man’s soul, but it was Doré who brought it to life. Doré’s interpretations were based upon what he saw as, “the enigma of death and the hallucination of an inconsolable soul.” A year later, in early 1883, Doré died just as he was finishing “The Raven” engravings. He was only 51 years old and unfortunately never had the pleasure of seeing his beautiful images published with the poem.

Some of you will be very familiar with “The Raven”, and perhaps others have never read it before. But here it is, in all its glory, complete with Doré’s exquisite engravings. A collaboration of Poe and Doré, two of my greatest inspirations… what could be better? And as an extra treat, you can listen to a wonderful rendition here, read by the incomparable Vincent Price. Enjoy!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

- The Raven -

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore,
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
“‘Tis some visitor,” I muttered, “tapping at my chamber door—
Only this, and nothing more.”

Ah, distinctly I remember it was in the bleak December,
And each separate dying ember wrought its ghost upon the floor.

Eagerly I wished the morrow;—vainly I had sought to borrow
From my books surcease of sorrow—

—sorrow for the lost Lenore—

For the rare and radiant maiden whom the angels name Lenore—
Nameless here for evermore.

And the silken sad uncertain rustling of each purple curtain
Thrilled me—filled me with fantastic terrors never felt before;
So that now, to still the beating of my heart, I stood repeating

‘Tis some visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door
Some late visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door;—
This it is, and nothing more.”

Presently my soul grew stronger; hesitating then no longer,
“Sir,” said I, “or Madam, truly your forgiveness I implore;
But the fact is I was napping, and so gently you came rapping,
And so faintly you came tapping, tapping at my chamber door,
That I scarce was sure I heard you”—

Here I opened wide the door;—
Darkness there, and nothing more.

Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there wondering, fearing,

Doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before;
But the silence was unbroken, and the stillness gave no token,
And the only word there spoken was the whispered word, “Lenore!”
This I whispered, and an echo murmured back the word, “Lenore!”
Merely this and nothing more.

Back into the chamber turning, all my soul within me burning,
Soon again I heard a tapping, somewhat louder than before.

“Surely,” said I, “surely that is something at my window lattice;
Let me see, then, what thereat is, and this mystery explore—
Let my heart be still a moment and this mystery explore;—
‘Tis the wind and nothing more!”

Open here I flung the shutter, when, with many a flirt and flutter,

In there stepped a stately Raven of the saintly days of yore.
Not the least obeisance made he; not a minute stopped or stayed he;
But, with mien of lord or lady, perched above my chamber door—

Perched upon a bust of Pallas just above my chamber door—
Perched, and sat, and nothing more.

Then this ebony bird beguiling my sad fancy into smiling,
By the grave and stern decorum of the countenance it wore,
“Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,” I said, “art sure no craven,

Ghastly grim and ancient Raven wandering from the Nightly shore,—
Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night’s Plutonian shore!”
Quoth the Raven, “Nevermore.”

Much I marvelled this ungainly fowl to hear discourse so plainly,
Though its answer little meaning—little relevancy bore;
For we cannot help agreeing that no living human being
Ever yet was blessed with seeing bird above his chamber door—
Bird or beast upon the sculptured bust above his chamber door,
With such name as “Nevermore.”

But the Raven, sitting lonely on the placid bust, spoke only
That one word, as if his soul in that one word he did outpour.
Nothing farther then he uttered—not a feather then he fluttered—

Till I scarcely more than muttered, “Other friends have flown before—
On the morrow he will leave me, as my hopes have flown before.”
Then the bird said, “Nevermore.”

Startled at the stillness broken by reply so aptly spoken,
“Doubtless,” said I, “what it utters is its only stock and store,
Caught from some unhappy master whom unmerciful Disaster
Followed fast and followed faster till his songs one burden bore—
Till the dirges of his Hope that melancholy burden bore
Of ‘Never—nevermore.’”

But the Raven still beguiling my sad fancy into smiling,
Straight I wheeled a cushioned seat in front of bird and bust and door;

Then, upon the velvet sinking, I betook myself to linking
Fancy unto fancy, thinking what this ominous bird of yore—
What this grim, ungainly, ghastly, gaunt and ominous bird of yore
Meant in croaking “Nevermore.”

This I sat engaged in guessing, but no syllable expressing
To the fowl whose fiery eyes now burned into my bosom’s core;
This and more I sat divining, with my head at ease reclining
On the cushion’s velvet lining that the lamplight gloated o’er,

But whose velvet violet lining with the lamplight gloating o’er
She shall press, ah, nevermore!

Then, methought, the air grew denser, perfumed from an unseen censer
Swung by seraphim whose foot-falls tinkled on the tufted floor.

“Wretch,” I cried, “thy God hath lent thee—by these angels he hath sent thee
Respite—respite and nepenthe from thy memories of Lenore!
Quaff, oh quaff this kind nepenthe, and forget this lost Lenore!”
Quoth the Raven, “Nevermore.”

“Prophet!” said I, “thing of evil!—prophet still, if bird or devil!—
Whether Tempter sent, or whether tempest tossed thee here ashore,
Desolate yet all undaunted, on this desert land enchanted—

On this home by Horror haunted—

tell me truly, I implore—
Is there—is there balm in Gilead?—tell me—tell me, I implore!”
Quoth the Raven, “Nevermore.”

“Prophet!” said I, “thing of evil—prophet still, if bird or devil!
By that Heaven that bends above, us—by that God we both adore—

Tell this soul with sorrow laden if, within the distant Aidenn,
It shall clasp a sainted maiden whom the angels name Lenore—
Clasp a rare and radiant maiden whom the angels name Lenore.”
Quoth the Raven, “Nevermore.”

‘Be that word our sign of parting, bird or fiend!’ I shrieked, upstarting.

“Get thee back into the tempest and the Night’s Plutonian shore!
Leave no black plume as a token of that lie thy soul hath spoken!
Leave my loneliness unbroken!—quit the bust above my door!
Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door!”
Quoth the Raven, “Nevermore.”

And the Raven, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting
On the pallid bust of Pallas just above my chamber door;
And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon’s that is dreaming,
And the lamplight o’er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor;

And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor
Shall be lifted—nevermore!”

~ Edgar Allan Poe

Dénouement:  the final outcome of the main dramatic complication in a literary work; the outcome of a complex sequence of events; the end result

Nothing is more clear than that every plot, worth the name, must be elaborated to its dénouement before any thing be attempted with the pen. It is only with the dénouement constantly in view that we can give a plot its indispensable air of consequence, or causation, by making the incidents, and especially the tone at all points, tend to the development of the intention.

In 1846, a year after “The Raven” was published, Edgar Allan Poe wrote “The Philosophy of Composition”, a prose essay explaining his famous poem. A friend and former employer of Poe’s, George Rex Graham (who had declined to be the first to print “The Raven” — a poem he didn’t like — the previous year), would publish the essay in his April issue of Graham’s American Monthly Magazine of Literature and Art.

There are some critics who contend that Poe’s essay is purely fictitious, meant to be nothing more than a piece of imaginative writing instead of a serious examination of his haunting poem. In my opinion, this idea is absolutely ludicrous. “The Philosophy of Composition” is a remarkable piece of literature revealing Poe’s carefully thought-out process of writing. It is an invaluable tool to writers, both professional and amateur alike. Why this essay isn’t a mandatory study in every high school English class in the world is beyond me.

Poe is quick to point out that many writers, poets in particular, are only too happy to have the reader believe “that they compose by a species of fine frenzy — an ecstatic intuition —” when in reality, as Poe will continue to describe in exquisite detail, that could not be further from the truth.

… it will not be regarded as a breach of decorum on my part to show the modus operandi by which one of my own works was put together… It is my design to render it manifest that no one point in its composition is referrible either to accident or intuition — that the work proceeded, step by step, to its completion with the precision and rigid consequence of a mathematical problem.

What I found most enlightening about Poe’s essay was seeing how his writing process was remarkably similar to the process I use when creating a painting. The birth of any work of art, be it a painting or a fine piece of literature, comes with much thought, consideration and careful planning.

The first step Poe takes in the writing of “The Raven” is determining the length of the poem. According to Poe, a poem should fall within “the limit of a single sitting”. Any literary work too long to be read in one sitting compromises the “unity of impression”. If it requires a second sitting to complete, then you risk losing the effectiveness of what you’ve written. As Poe puts it, “…the whole being deprived, through the extremeness of its length, of the vastly important artistic element, totality, or unity, of effect.”

Considering a number of factors, Poe determines that an appropriate length for his poem will be around 100 lines (“The Raven” has 108) – long enough to tell a compelling story and maintain reader interest, but short enough that none of the author’s artistic nuances are lost, and you retain the effective flow of the piece.

For example, if you build up to an exciting climax but then the reader is delayed in reading it, all the work you did to build up to it was for nothing. You’ve lost the effectiveness of the moment. To get the biggest bang for your buck you need to read the piece as a whole, from start to finish, at one time, so that everything is fresh in your mind, and you’re in the moment when the moment comes.

Next Poe decides on the province of the poem, that is, the impression or effect to be conveyed and the tone it will take: “Beauty is the sole legitimate province of the poem. Beauty of whatever kind, in its supreme development, invariably excites the sensitive soul to tears. Melancholy is thus the most legitimate of all the poetical tones.”

Even Poe’s choice of the word for the poem’s refrain – “Nevermore” spoken by a raven – is extremely well thought-out and complex. He chooses to vary the application of the refrain instead of varying the refrain itself. Instead of the refrain being different each time it’s used, when and where the refrain is spoken will vary; he must decide the nature of the refrain, its length and character; where to use it and how it will sound; THEN select a word embodying this sound in keeping with the tone of the poem. Finally, he settles on a pretext for the continuous use of the one word – why is the same word being used over and over again. Poe’s solution: have it spoken by a raven, “the bird of ill omen”.

At last we come to the most important part of the planning process… what is the poem’s topic?

Of all the melancholy topics, what, according to the universal understanding of mankind, is the most melancholy? Death — was the obvious reply. And when is this most melancholy of topics most poetical? When it most closely allies itself to Beauty: the death, then, of a beautiful woman is, unquestionably, the most poetical topic in the world — and equally is it beyond doubt that the lips best suited for such topic are those of a bereaved lover.

“I had now to combine the two ideas, of a lover lamenting his deceased mistress and a Raven continuously repeating the word “Nevermore”…” Here Poe concludes that the Raven will speak the refrain in answer to the queries of the lover. And now the building begins. The queries will begin as commonplace, the first of course is simply the man asking the bird its name. But each query will gradually become more serious until eventually the lover, expecting to hear the Raven’s answer of Nevermore, becomes delirious and half-crazed, asking the final question whose climax involves “the utmost conceivable amount of sorrow and despair.” For me, this is the magic moment.

Here then the poem may be said to have its beginning — at the end, where all works of art should begin — for it was here, at this point of my preconsiderations, that I first put pen to paper in the composition of the stanza:

“Prophet,” said I, “thing of evil! prophet still if bird or devil!

By that heaven that bends above us — by that God we both adore,

Tell this soul with sorrow laden, if within the distant Aidenn,

It shall clasp a sainted maiden whom the angels name Lenore –

Clasp a rare and radiant maiden whom the angels name Lenore.

Quoth the raven, “Nevermore”.”

The very first thing that Poe writes is the climax or conclusion of the story. With the climax established, Poe explains how he could now better vary and graduate the seriousness and importance of the preceding queries of the lover, and in turn make certain that none of the previous stanzas would surpass the climactic one.

Poe continues on in his essay to describe every detail of the poem and how he came about making the choices he did. It is a fascinating journey into the mind of this incredible writer. Poe leaves nothing to chance. He even chooses a bust of Pallas for the Raven to perch upon for the effect of contrast between the light-coloured marble of the bust and the dark plumage of the bird.

When reading the poem, we can see the gradual change which comes over the lover. At first he is amused by the Raven, then his thoughts turn to the slightly fantastical, and finally he turns very serious. “This revolution of thought, or fancy, on the lover’s part, is intended to induce a similar one on the part of the reader — to bring the mind into a proper frame for the dénouement.”

The dénouement or final outcome of the narrative is the Raven’s reply of “Nevermore” to the lover’s final demand if he shall meet his mistress in another world.

Poe’s process is so wonderfully refreshing because he really has thought of everything. The entire series of events is entirely plausible – a raven seeking shelter from the stormy night flies into a man’s house. The bird constantly repeats the only word that it has been taught, but that word “finds immediate echo in the melancholy heart” of the lover who is already wallowing in grief over the death of his beloved Lenore.

And he is impelled by “the human thirst for self-torture.” He keeps asking questions, knowing already what the Raven’s answer will be. Everything is plausible, Poe has kept both feet in reality. There is nothing supernatural about the occurrences in “The Raven”, and perhaps that is what makes the story so striking — the realness of the situation resonates with the reader, giving the poem soul.

Having stayed within the confines of reality, Poe ensures that the poem doesn’t lose its richness and artistic appeal.

“I added the two concluding stanzas of the poem — their suggestiveness being thus made to pervade all the narrative which has preceded them. The under-current of meaning is rendered first apparent in the lines — 

“Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door!”

Quoth the Raven “Nevermore!”

It will be observed that the words, “from out my heart,” involve the first metaphorical expression in the poem. They, with the answer, “Nevermore,” dispose the mind to seek a moral in all that has been previously narrated. The reader begins now to regard the Raven as emblematical — but it is not until the very last line of the very last stanza, that the intention of making him emblematical of Mournful and Never-ending Remembrance is permitted distinctly to be seen:

And the Raven, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting,

On the pallid bust of Pallas just above my chamber door;

And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon’s that is dreaming,

And the lamplight o’er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor;

And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor

Shall be lifted — nevermore.

I strongly urge you to ready Poe’s essay, The Philosophy of Composition, for yourself. It is a veritable fountain of information, and it discusses even more than what I have highlighted here. It is a rare and exciting privilege to take a peek into the mind of a genius, to see how he thinks, to discover the method behind his madness. That is what Poe has given us with this extraordinary piece of literature — a chance to glimpse the master at work.

In all of his writings, from the first line to the last, Edgar Allan Poe truly captivates the imagination. His unmatched literary prowess spanned all topics. The same man that gave us the most beautiful of verses from “Annabel Lee”, “But we loved with a love that was more than love”, also gave us a taste of the torments of the Spanish Inquisition in “The Pit and the Pendulum”. We must stand idly by as a Prince loses the battle to protect himself from the Plague in “Masque of the Red Death”.

But it is in his most brilliant of works, “The Raven”, that Poe reaches his artistic peak. He lays bare a man’s soul, strips his sorrow naked, and illustrates the sad fact that we’re sometimes our own worst enemy.

Painting is poetry that is seen rather than felt, and poetry is painting that is felt rather than seen.

~ Leonardo Da Vinci

The smoke has cleared, the dust has settled. Things have finally returned to normal. Well, as normal as they were before. It’s been a month since my last post, “Quoth the Raven…”, was Freshly Pressed. Boy, what a great feeling it was to add that “Freshly Pressed” badge to my blog!

It was exciting to get the “Congratulations” email (which irritatingly enough, ended up in my junk folder of all places!). But the best part wasn’t the notification or the badge. Nor was it the 190 likes, the 148 comments, the 130+ new blog followers I picked up, or all the neat people I met along the way. No, the BEST part of this experience was telling my best friend about it.

That’s right. Sending off that “OMG! My post got Freshly Pressed!” message to Paul gave me the best feeling. I literally sent that within 60 seconds of discovering the email. Because c’mon, what’s the point of something cool happening to you if you can’t share the joy? In fact, the only thing that tops this moment? Getting the message from him back in November telling ME that HIS post – “Conformity’s Critical Eye” – was Freshly Pressed.

Without Paul, “Quoth the Raven …” would never have come to fruition anyway. It would still be sitting in my drafts folder right now, never to see the light of day. Thank you, Boss, for all the encouragement and for your impeccable editing skills. I literally couldn’t have done it without you. You’re amazing.

So the big question is … what comes next? Well, as the self-proclaimed “Seeker of Truth”, the possibilities are endless. I’ll admit right now that I’m not impressed with myself. I’ve let an entire month go by and I haven’t posted a thing. This was not my intention. In fact, I have no fewer than five blog post drafts on the go right now: Artists, Templars, books to read or skip, a special collaborative Twilight Zone piece w/ Paul, who happens to be Mr. Twilight Zone himself …

But there’s a problem: I don’t want to write. I want to paint.

I go through these phases – for a while I don’t want to even see a paintbrush, but I’m gripped by the urge to write. Then the writing becomes monotonous and I’m filled with a desire to paint. And that’s the phase I’m in right now. I’ve spent the winter writing, trying to avoid my ice box studio, and my fingers are now itching to ditch my keyboard in favour of the texture of canvas.

You fail only if you stop writing.

~ Ray Bradbury

But no worries, I don’t intend to abandon my blog. Not even for a short while. I have big plans for 2013. And with the endless support of My Muse, I promise none of you will regret sticking around to see what the Seeker of Truth can seek out.

Thanks to all of you for reading, sharing, liking, commenting, following and reblogging. Stay tuned. We’ve only just begun …

I learned never to empty the well of my writing, but always to stop when there was still something there in the deep part of the well, and let it refill at night from the springs that fed it.

~ Ernest Hemingway

◊     ◊     ◊     ◊     ◊     ◊     ◊     ◊     ◊     ◊     ◊

There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man’s fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call … the Twilight Zone.

◊     ◊     ◊     ◊     ◊     ◊     ◊     ◊     ◊     ◊     ◊

Those words, spoken in Rod Serling’s irresistible voice, will forever echo inside my head. That suspenseful little pause he’d always add right before saying, “… the Twilight Zone”, still gets me every time.

It was the combination of brilliant writing and superb acting that set The Twilight Zone apart, making it one of my all-time favourite television series. And like most people, I have a few favourites – stories that were wonderfully compelling for one reason or another, episodes that I could watch over and over again for all eternity.

One thing that all Twilight Zone fans like to do is compare their top episodes. It’s fun to debate why seeing your doppelgänger in a bus depot is creepier than talking mannequins in a department store. And a person’s favourite TZs can often tell you quite a bit about them.

So submitted for your approval: my top 25 Twilight Zone episodes, which I’ve paired with my favourite quote from each.

◊     ◊     ◊     ◊     ◊     ◊     ◊     ◊     ◊     ◊     ◊

1- The Howling Man

“Truth is our dogma. We believe it to be man’s greatest weapon against the Devil, who is the father of all lies.”

2- Nick of Time

“It doesn’t matter whether it can foretell the future, what matters is whether you believe more in luck and in fortune than you do in yourself. You can decide your own life. You have a mind. A wonderful mind. Don’t destroy it trying to justify that cheap penny fortune machine.”

3- The Masks

“Mardi Gras incident, the dramatis personae being four people who came to celebrate and in a sense let themselves go. This they did with a vengeance. They now wear the faces of all that was inside them – and they’ll wear them for the rest of their lives, said lives now to be spent in shadow.”

4- Eye of the Beholder

“Now the questions that come to mind. Where is this place, and when is it? What kind of world where ugliness is the norm and beauty the deviation from that norm? You want an answer? The answer is, it doesn’t make any difference. Because the old saying happens to be true. Beauty *is* in the eye of the beholder, in this year or a hundred years hence. On this planet or wherever there is human life, perhaps out amongst the stars. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Lesson to be learned – in The Twilight Zone.”

5- Deaths-Head Revisited

“All the Dachaus must remain standing. The Dachaus, the Belsens, the Buchenwalds, the Auschwitzes – all of them. They must remain standing because they are a monument to a moment in time when some men decided to turn the Earth into a graveyard. Into it they shoveled all of their reason, their logic, their knowledge, but worst of all, their conscience. And the moment we forget this, the moment we cease to be haunted by its remembrance, then we become the gravediggers. Something to dwell on and to remember, not only in The Twilight Zone but wherever men walk God’s Earth.”

6- Nothing in the Dark

“You see. No shock. No engulfment. No tearing asunder. What you feared would come like an explosion, is like a whisper. What you thought was the end, is the beginning.”

7- The Last Rites of Jeff Myrtlebank

“Jeff and Comfort are still alive today, and their only son is a United States Senator who’s noted as un uncommonly shrewd politician – and some believe he must have gotten his education … in the Twilight Zone.”

8- The Hunt

“A man, well, he’ll walk right into hell with both eyes open. But even the devil can’t fool a dog.”

9- The Shelter

“No moral, no message, no prophetic tract, just a simple statement of fact: for civilization to survive, the human race has to remain civilized.”

10- The Night of the Meek

“A word to the wise – to all the children of the 20th century: whether their concern be pediatrics or geriatrics, whether they crawl on hands and knees and wear diapers, or walk with a cane and comb their beards. There’s a wonderous magic to Christmas and there’s a special power reserved for little people. In short, there’s nothing mightier than the meek.”

11- The Grave

“You go on up there and see Pinto. I just came from there. He’s waiting for you… ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!”

12- The Gift

“If God were to come to earth would they find him so strange that they would be afraid and would they shoot him? Did not His son come once? And they nailed him to a cross. And then spent 2,000 years learning to believe in Him.”

13- Black Leather Jackets

“Most of these people have the capacity for love, I know it. They learn love from their God and teach it to their children, there’s more of love here than hate, there’s no need to kill them.”

14- Number 12 Looks Just Like You

“Being like everybody is the same as being nobody.”

15- Nightmare at 20,000 Feet

“The flight of Mr. Robert Wilson has ended now, a flight not only from point A to point B, but also from the fear of recurring mental breakdown. Mr. Wilson has that fear no longer… though, for the moment, he is, as he has said, alone in this assurance. Happily, his conviction will not remain isolated too much longer, for happily, tangible manifestation is very often left as evidence of trespass, even from so intangible a quarter as … the Twilight Zone.”

16- Night Call

“According to the Bible, God created the heavens and the Earth. It is man’s prerogative – and woman’s – to create their own particular and private hell. Case in point, Miss Elva Keene, who in every sense has made her own bed and now must lie in it, sadder, but wiser, by dint of a rather painful lesson in responsibility, transmitted from  …the Twilight Zone.”

17- The New Exhibit

“When you live with them as long as I have, you come to love them… then they cease to be strangers and you want to say good morning!”

18- Dust

“There must be another hand in all of this for the rope to break like that. Another hand. Maybe the hand of providence.”

19- The Hitch-Hiker

“I believe you’re going… my way.”

20- Will the Real Martian Please Stand Up?

“You know these, cigarettes do you call them? They taste wonderful. We haven’t got a thing like this on Mars. That’s, incidentally, where I come from.”

21- The Old Man in the Cave

“He didn’t drop the bomb. He didn’t kill off this earth. We did that to ourselves. All he’s done is to let us survive our mistake. All he’s done is to let us plant a seed again and let it grow. All the compassion that’s left on this earth is in that cave.”

22- I Sing the Body Electric

“Your mother died too when you were young. Did you ever forgive her for running away like that and never coming back?”

23- Two

“Precrassny.”

24- A Stop at Willoughby

“Willoughby? Maybe it’s wishful thinking nestled in a hidden part of a man’s mind, or maybe it’s the last stop in the vast design of things…”

25- The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street

“The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill, and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all of its own for the children, and the children yet unborn. And the pity of it is that these things cannot be confined to … the Twilight Zone.”

◊     ◊     ◊     ◊     ◊     ◊     ◊     ◊     ◊     ◊     ◊

So there you have it. My 25 favourite episodes of the Twilight Zone. It wasn’t an easy task, picking just twenty-five that I love. Because let’s face it, I pretty much love them all (except for “Time Enough at Last”).

While I sat here writing this list, something struck me. As I poured over all 156 episodes, each of them bringing to mind a fond memory or a pleasant feeling, it hit me just how incredible this anthology series truly is. Nearly 54 years after “Where Is Everybody?” (TZ’s premiere episode) aired, we’re still talking about it. And we’re not just remembering it, we’re actively watching, discussing, debating and sharing our favourite episodes.

Then, in the midst of my revery, I came across something that Twilight Zone creator Rod Serling once said:

As I grow older, the urge to write gets less and less. I’ve pretty much spewed out everything I had to say, none of which has been particularly monumental—nothing which will stand the test of time. The good writing, like wine, has to age well and my stuff has been momentarily adequate.

“Momentarily adequate”? Nothing “particularly monumental”? Oh, my dear Mr. Serling, I must emphatically disagree. Your work HAS stood the test of time and will continue to well into the future. Indeed, your work back then was ahead of its time. You pushed the boundaries of what was considered acceptable to discuss, and what was taboo. You brought racism and bigotry into the spotlight in order to promote awareness and acceptance. The Twilight Zone never shied away from controversy, instead choosing to utilize the media to teach the masses about love for your fellow man and human decency. You, Mr. Serling, who was never ashamed of his conviction, wrote a page of history. When I think of all the lives you touched, the people you’ve inspired, the great lengths you went to in order to make a difference, I am filled with nothing but love and admiration for you. May God bless you, sir.

No matter your favourites, one thing we can all agree on is that The Twilight Zone continues to delight the heart and excite the mind. For those of us seeking adventure, mystery, morality, justice or redemption, the one place we’re guaranteed to find it … is in the Twilight Zone.

But it makes you wonder, doesn’t it? Just how normal are we? Just who are the people we nod our hellos to as we pass on the street? A rather good question to ask – particularly in The Twilight Zone.

~The After Hours

♦      ♦      ♦      ♦      ♦      ♦      ♦      ♦      ♦      ♦      ♦

To blog, or not to blog… the modern day question.

365 days ago, that little play on Hamlet was how my blog, Seeker of Truth, entered the blogosphere.

Blogging is rampant in the world today. It seems everyone and his grandmother’s parakeet has a blog. And there’s literally something for everyone. As my best friend quipped to me the other day, “If you’re into collecting antique soup can labels from the 1800s, there’s probably a blog for you.” And in this digital age where virtually anything you want to know is at your fingertips, having your say is also just a few key strokes away. No experience necessary.

The scariest moment is always just before you start.

~ Stephen King, On Writing

When I began, a year ago today, I had a pretty clear-cut idea of what I wanted my blog to be. In that debut post, I described my new blog as a potpourri, an “exchange of ideas, opinions and facts.” Hence the name, Seeker of Truth. I wanted to talk about religion, history and art – both famous works and my own paintings; to explore books, review television and movies, analyze literature, and so on.

But while I knew what I wanted to do, I couldn’t anticipate just how it would work out. I was immediately filled with doubts. Would anyone read it? Would anyone care? What if I’m too boring, both in the topics I write about and simply how I write?

And by the way, everything in life is writable about if you have the outgoing guts to do it, and the imagination to improvise. The worst enemy to creativity is self-doubt.

~ Sylvia Plath

If you’re new to blogging, ignore those questions. The number one thing to remember when you’re writing anything, is that you should ENJOY it. Write because you love to write, and write what you’re passionate about. Most of us aren’t blogging for cash, it’s not our job. Blogging is something we do in our spare time. It’s a creative outlet designed for our enjoyment. If sitting down to write a new post feels like waiting for a root canal at the dentist’s office? You either need to rethink what you’re writing about and why you’re writing it, or find a new hobby. Blogging shouldn’t be a painful experience.

I sit here browsing my blog a year later, perusing my 24 posts, and I’m pleased. My blog has become exactly what I was hoping it would. There’s a nice mix of what interests me. I wish I had the time and inclination to post more frequently, but I’ve still managed to average two posts a month, which I feel is adequate.

I value quality over quantity. Sure, lots of people turn out a post a week, or even every day. And yes, there are a number of extremely talented writers whose work is impeccable no matter how frequently they blog. But they are few and far between. Many of the daily blogs are just random collections of words: no real purpose, no intent, boring to nearly everyone except the person who wrote it. To each his own, but I don’t need a daily diary of the cute things your cat has done today. Nor am I interested in hearing about your latest sexcapade, ladies (and I use that term “ladies” loosely).

I like to read things with a little substance, so it stands to reason that I’m going to write something with substance. Whether I’m explaining the planning process of painting a masterpiece, or I’m commenting on my favourite episodes of The Twilight Zone, I want what I write to be both entertaining and valuable to the person reading it.

If I had to pick a favourite post, it would have to be “The “Divine” Art of Gustave Doré ”. It combined my two favourite things: Beautiful art and research. I’m a seeker, I like to read and discover things. It’s an actual compulsion at times, to solve a mystery or just learn more about something that interests me. This post explored not only Doré the artist, but Doré the man. It’s also bursting at the seams with pictures. And as everyone who’s been to my blog knows, I’m quite fond of having an abundance of pretty things to look at.

Writing is just another medium of art, but the goal is the same. Writing is not just about putting down words on a page or screen. Anyone can describe what is seen with the eye, but writers and artists show us what’s beyond the outer appearance — they reveal the soul. There are millions of writers in the world. What sets the good ones apart from the rest is the ability to make you care about what you’re reading. I try not to just write something that will be read and forgotten, I want to write something that can be felt and leave the reader wanting to know more.

Though I was skeptical at first, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed my blogging experience this past year. The best part? There’s still an infinite supply of topics to write about, and a whole myriad of diverse and interesting people to meet. Want to know what the Seeker of Truth will be tackling next? Follow the blog and stay tuned to find out.

Happy anniversary, Seeker of Truth!

♦      ♦      ♦      ♦      ♦      ♦      ♦      ♦      ♦      ♦      ♦

♦     ♦     ♦     ♦     ♦     ♦     ♦

Fellow Seekers, there’s something new to discover on my blog.

In the last month or so, I’ve added two new feature pages: “The Treasury” and “The Gallery”.

In The Treasury you’ll find a chronological list of all my blog articles. All posts are dated and links to the posts are provided. Nothing special, just something to make navigating Seeker of Truth a bit easier.

In The Gallery …

The Gallery, however, is something much more exciting. The Gallery is a page featuring a selection of my own paintings. I am an artist by trade, and my blog felt incomplete without examples of my main form of expression. Just a few of my favourite works, in no particular order. Along with photos of the paintings themselves, you’ll find the title and date each painting was completed, and I’ve paired the artwork with relevant, inspirational and just plain interesting art-related quotes.

You can find links to both “The Treasury” and “The Gallery” above the banner and title on my blog. There’s always more to discover here. And I’ll be adding even more pages, so be sure to check for something new whenever you visit. Seek and ye shall find!

♦     ♦     ♦     ♦     ♦     ♦     ♦

Next week on the Twilight Zone, we tell a story that we think might prove a rather haunting little item in the scheme of things. It tells of a small Mexican boy and a visitor from another planet. And it tells further what happens when this extra terrestrial traveller is faced with some of the less personable instincts of human beings, like fear, superstitions and intolerance. Our story is called “The Gift”.

A space ship crashes outside a small, quiet town in Mexico. Following an altercation, one police officer is dead and the alien has been shot. The authorities and townspeople are out for vengeance – and blood. The injured alien steals into the town, seeking asylum, and hopefully compassion.

But there is much more to this alien stranger than meets the eye. For he not only comes in peace, he comes bearing a “Gift”. A very special gift. But it’s a gift that, unfortunately for the world, is reduced to a pile of ashes because the people of this tiny village simply refused to listen for even a moment.

Episode 32 of The Twilight Zone’s third season aired on April 27, 1962 – just five days after Easter, which was very appropriate timing given the topic. Written by Rod Serling, and directed by Allen H. Miner, “The Gift” is perhaps the most under-appreciated TZ episode there is.

It’s an episode that has been knocked, mocked, criticized and dismissed, as shown by this unsavoury review I found online:

“…this Rod Serling-scripted Twilight Zone episode is widely regarded as the series’ low point. A ham-handed Christ parable, the story is set in a backward Mexican village, where the arrival of a mysterious stranger named Williams (Geoffrey Horne) brings out the superstitious worst in the local citizenry. Only little Pedro (Edmund Vargas) and the town’s doctor (Nico Minardos) refuse to regard Williams as a threat, but they are shouted down by a hostile mob, leading to a painfully obvious climax that wouldn’t have gotten past “Creative Writing 101.” The sole redeeming virtue of “The Gift” was its classical guitar score by the great Laurindo Almeida.”  Review by Hal Erickson

Um… “widely regarded” by whom? Illiterates? Degenerates? Closed-minded atheists? The self-righteous religious who are ashamed of what they supposedly believe?

Come off it, Hal.

Yet another example of this type of unfounded criticism can be found in Marc Scott Zicree’s book, “The Twilight Zone Companion”:

“The Gift” is no gift to fans of The Twilight Zone, however. It is pretentious, stereotypical, and insulting, particularly to anyone of Mexican heritage. With the exception of Pedro, the doctor, and a blind guitar player (Vladimir Sokoloff), all the people in the village are presented as superstitious, fearful peasants who prefer to see the alien as an agent of the Devil rather than as a friendly emissary from “beyond the stars.”

Interesting. So according to Zicree, the episode is racist and the people are all mentally deficient. I’ll touch on all of those points later in the post.

And my apologies, but I refuse to soil my blog by quoting anything but the bare minimum from my final example – a recent online review by Todd VanDerWerff of the A.V. Club, which has been reviewing every episode of the Twilight Zone in chronological order.

You can read the offending article for yourself here: http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-tradeinsthe-gift,98629/ It’s nasty, distasteful, and the author, Todd, is rather archaic in his thinking and comprehension.

These three examples illustrate very well people’s lack of patience and understanding. Apparently “The Gift” just doesn’t have enough explosions to hold some viewers’ interest. But most importantly, they all reveal an alarmingly high degree of ignorance, which I will illustrate later on.

Reading this last review left me spitting fire. It’s one thing to give constructive criticism that has at least some basis in reality and fact. But this was just a blood bath. And it infuriated me.

There are plenty of examples in the A.V. Club review which show the blatant lack of thought behind what’s discussed in the article.

I got the impression that he was criticizing the idea of the alien waiting until he’s about to die before he gives up the gift: “Williams, it turns out, has brought humanity a gift he’s refused to show anybody until his life is in danger.”

Why does Williams not hand over the gift immediately? Simple. The people didn’t deserve it yet. Should we only act civil to someone if he can offer us something? If the villagers had known what the stranger had brought them, they’d have certainly welcomed him with open arms. But that’s not how all people are, and it would defeat the purpose of this story.

The entire episode is filled with analogies, examples of Serling taking the lessons of old and fashioning them into something new and modern, to help the viewer relate. “Soon your people will no longer be afraid of me. They will not be afraid, and then… then I can show them the gift.” Shades of Jesus, perhaps? His is a gift that’s freely given, but you must believe and accept Him in order to claim it. You must have faith. Similarly in “The Gift”, the alien brings a gift of goodwill for the people of earth. But again, although it too was given freely, receiving the gift was dependent upon the people accepting and at the very least, being decent to the stranger. Which unfortunately they weren’t.

The author even suggests that the episode strays from Serling’s intended message. “But by introducing the uneasy racial politics—and, it has to be said, so many bad actors—“The Gift” takes on a different meaning entirely, far from the one Serling obviously intended.”

And right there the credibility of the author and by extension his review, becomes worthless. Often critical of his own work, Serling himself seemed to think this was a good, solid story. It was one of several prospective pilot scripts he wrote for Twilight Zone. He rewrote the hour-long teleplay to make this episode.

Serling’s script. Serling’s show. Pretty much complete creative control. I think it’s a safe bet that “The Gift” played out exactly as Serling wanted it to.

Although it’s met with so many hostile, negative reviews, what Serling penned here was a true masterpiece. I believe “The Gift” belongs in the top five greatest TZ scripts he ever wrote, and why not? “The Gift” is a futuristic tale, taking place in an old-fashioned setting, with a clever allegorical twist.

Initially titled “The Guest” in 1962, when the episode was assigned a production number it was retitled “The Visitor”. Two days later, it was given the title we know it by now, “The Gift”.

In the mid-1960s, Serling once again had big plans for this piece. He rewrote the story into a screenplay, intending to make a Twilight Zone movie. Unfortunately, the film never got off the ground.

Like much of Serling’s work, “The Gift” is a story with a lesson. A lesson in tolerance, kindness, acceptance and perhaps most important of all, faith.

This is indeed an allegory of Jesus Christ. But what makes it especially beautiful, is that this isn’t just a retelling of the story of Jesus. In the episode, Williams (the alien) and Pedro (the little boy), actually speak OF Him.

It comes when Williams tells Pedro he must leave.

Pedro: “For good, señor? For good and all?”

Williams: “Oh, no, Pedro, there’s no such thing as “for good and all.” There is only forever. I will come back sometime… or others like me.”

Pedro: “Where you’re from, is there a God?”

Williams: “The same God, Pedro.”

Pedro: “I wonder.”

Williams: “What?”

Pedro: “If God were to come to earth, would they find him so strange that they would be afraid, and would they shoot him?”

Williams: “Did not His son come once, Pedro?”

Pedro: “And they nailed Him to a cross.”

Williams: “And then spent 2,000 years learning to believe in Him. All things take time, Pedro. Soon, Pedro, soon your people will no longer be afraid of me. They will not be afraid, and then… then I can show them the gift.”

That exchange gives me goosebumps each and every time I hear it. After watching the episode literally dozens of times, it still sends shivers right down to my soul. No one will ever convince me that this isn’t a damn good bit of writing.

Edmund Vargas as Pedro

While Williams isn’t being depicted directly AS Jesus, there are some clear similarities between them. Two instances really stand out to me.

The alien arrives at the bar. He’s been shot by the policeman. In the back room, the Doctor sits down and prepares to remove the bullets from Williams’ chest. The Doctor pulls out a bottle of ether. When he takes the cap off, Williams smells it, and when he realizes it’s ether, refuses to take it.

Serling would have used these two Bible references for this detail:

John 19:29: “A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. When he had received the drink…”

Matthew 27:34 – “There they offered Jesus wine to drink, mixed with gall; but after tasting it, he refused to drink it.”

You need both of those scripture references because it’s important to note that Jesus tasted the mixture, but then refused to drink it. In “The Gift”, Williams sees the Doctor pull out the bottle and he doesn’t seem to mind, until he gets a whiff of what’s inside. Then he refuses it.

The second, perhaps more potent correlation, is when the Doctor emerges from the back room of the bar after patching up Williams. The shot opens with Manolo, the bartender, counting coins on the bar.

While the doctor was busy tending to the stranger, Manolo went out and told the Sheriff that the alien could be found right there, in the bar. “They would not have to go walking through the hills at night. They would only have to come here to find what they want.”  Manolo knows the authorities are looking for a monster that allegedly killed the other deputy. The Doctor is incensed when Manolo tells him what he has done. They have this exchange as the Doctor leaves:

Doctor: “At your baptism, they forgot to give you a proper name.”

Manolo: “What would that be, Doctor?”

Doctor: “That would be Judas, Manolo.”

Manolo shrugs it off and resumes counting his… pieces of silver…?

Matthew 26:15 – “Judas went to the chief priests and asked, “What are you willing to give me if I hand Him over to you?” So they counted out for him thirty silver coins.”

Nico Minardos (who portrayed the Doctor) recalled his experience on “The Gift” in this excerpt from Martin Grams’ book, “The Twilight Zone: Unlocking the Door to a Television Classic”:

“Doctor” Nico Minardos

“I did some thirty movies over the years and a number of television and of all those, The Twilight Zone is the one I get more mail about. I’m getting fan mail from Switzerland, Ireland, Germany, as well as the United States. In those years we used to rehearse a couple days, and then film for three days. Rod wanted me to do the show and what I remember most was the excitement we all had of the show. We knew it was an allegory to Jesus Christ, which was the premise, and everyone was trying to remain calm for the crowd sequence.”

Serling crafted this episode so beautifully. The entire piece is amazing. But I do have a favourite part. A part that I consider the script’s crowning jewel. And it’s a single line of dialogue: Pedro: “Where you’re from, is there a God?” Williams: “The same God, Pedro.”

Perhaps this is simply me projecting my own personal belief on this exchange. But maybe not. This dialogue, to me, is the true “gift” of Serling’s tale.

Williams is an alien. He comes from another world, from “beyond the stars”, as he tells Pedro. At the time The Twilight Zone was airing (1959-64), the idea of space travel and aliens was still brand new. People were afraid, and I’m sure there was great speculation about what it would mean – finding intelligent lifeforms somewhere in the universe other than ourselves.

Even today, the subject brings about theories that aliens are far more advanced than we are, both intellectually and technologically. Indeed, many people believe that if aliens do exist, then they must have created us. And therefore, they must be God.

When I read this line, I can’t help but wonder if this was Serling’s way of saying what should be common belief amongst all, Christians especially: If there is alien life in the universe, OUR God (Truth and Love, Jesus is His name) is still God over them.

As I expressed in a previous post, “Ghosts, Aliens and Evolution”, the belief in one (God or aliens) does not negate the existence of the other. “The same God, Pedro.” Williams didn’t say, “No, Pedro. WE are gods. We created you.”

Serling was a genius writer. I don’t believe he chose his words without careful consideration. And I don’t believe he would have written that line unless he was making a specific point. Even the emphasis that actor Geoffrey Horne  puts into the delivery of this line… there’s conviction there, there’s feeling, there’s faith. He BELIEVES it.

So what was the “gift” that Williams brought?

“Greetings to the people of earth. We come as friends, and in peace. We bring you this gift. The following chemical formula is a vaccine. It’s a vaccine against all forms of cancer.” 

He brought them the gift of LIFE. How beautifully apropos. For was LIFE not the gift that Jesus brought as well?

Perhaps the great irony of this episode is that it wasn’t Williams who was the monster. It was the people, who in their ignorance became monsters themselves. This is a recurring theme in Serling’s writing – the consequences of mankind’s lack of decency. Two good examples of this are “The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street” and “The Shelter”, both in my Top 25 list along with “The Gift”. As always, Serling illustrates the human capacity for intolerance, cruelty and savagery with frightening realism.

“The Gift” is not a story written to entertain. It is a story meant to teach. There is so much to be learned from this tale.

And isn’t it also ironic that the very thing this teaches against is the same thing that leads people to dismiss it as garbage in the first place? For is it not our prejudice, our intolerance, our bigotry and fear that makes us shy away from anything even remotely associated with Jesus? Do we not have preconceived notions about Christianity that cause us to turn our noses up when someone references it, directly or indirectly?

Would “The Gift” receive such harsh and unfounded criticism if all the Christ-like references were removed? Would people question its validity, its value, its worth, if some other religion were being suggested in it? I highly doubt it.

And don’t let your perspective be skewed by the race of the people portrayed or the time the story is set in. The negative reviewers cry “racist”, “insulting” and “derogatory”, but in fact it is THEY who are exhibiting racism and prejudice. Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. And if YOUR mind lives in the gutter, then everything you look at will appear to be in the gutter too. Because you drag it down into the filth with you.

“Serling intends for all of this to depict humanity as a whole coming in contact with a superior intellect and destroying that intellect because of its own insecurities or fears.” (A.V. Club review) Superior intellect had nothing to do with this. The fact that Williams is more advanced than the people is a moot point because the villagers knew nothing about Williams. He looked the same, dressed the same, spoke their language. No one knew what the gift was until it was all over, making Todd’s observation a pathetic grasping-at-straws attempt to further degrade the episode with his false suppositions.

Take the blinders off, shrug away YOUR prejudice and intolerance, and view this episode with fresh eyes. If an alien space ship crashed in downtown New York, the people would panic. The whole world would panic. Everyone would be afraid. Not just a hundred years ago, or fifty years ago, but today.

Would we really behave much differently than the so-called “backward” Mexicans we see in “The Gift”? Zicree charges, “All the people in the village are presented as superstitious, fearful peasants who prefer to see the alien as an agent of the Devil rather than as a friendly emissary from “beyond the stars.” But today, if you saw someone lurking around your backyard in the middle of the night, would you immediately assume he was a “friendly emissary”? Would you run out, greet him with open arms and welcome him into your home? Or would your first instinct be “danger”?

Serling’s scripts are timeless. The lessons are applicable any time, anywhere, to anyone. That is what made him such an incredible writer. His work spans generations, it broke boundaries and forced the darkness inside of every man and woman out into the light. Not to hurt or bring anyone down, but to teach them, to hopefully better them, then, now and in the future.

What makes this Serling script so valuable is that it’s teaching the same lesson Jesus taught – seek the Truth and Love one another — but with all the ignorance-imposed connotations stripped away in the hopes that we’ll actually pay attention this time. But have we paid attention? Well, considering this episode is still looked down upon to an astonishing degree, then apparently not.

There is a wonderful gift in this episode, but many people are too blinded by their own prejudice to see it. Like the villagers, they judge without thought or consideration. And what will they reap from it? Nothing good. Just the pain and disappointment that comes from making a huge, needless mistake, that results in the suffering of innocent people.

Madeiro, Mexico, the present. The subject: fear. The cure: a little more faith. An RX off a shelf – in the Twilight Zone.

Yes, wouldn’t we all benefit from just a little more faith.

So we have not just killed a man. We have killed a dream.

♦      ♦     ♦     ♦     ♦     ♦     ♦     ♦     ♦     ♦     ♦

Edgar Allan Poe may be the king of the macabre tale, but this troubled and tortured soul also had a serious romantic side. We’re all familiar with his works of suspense and horror: “The Raven”, ”The Tell-Tale Heart”, ”The Murders in the Rue Morgue”, and “The Fall of the House of Usher”, to name a few. But I want to introduce you to the softer side of Poe.

Allow me to acquaint you with two of my favourite Poe love poems. The first you may be familiar with, but probably not the second: the haunting “Annabel Lee”, and the somewhat obscure but disturbingly beautiful ”For Annie”.

The death of a beautiful woman is, unquestionably, the most poetical topic in the world — and equally is it beyond doubt that the lips best suited for such topic are those of a bereaved lover.

While Poe wrote these words referencing his poem “The Raven” in the essay “The Philosophy of Composition”, they’re perfectly applicable to “Annabel Lee” as well.

“Annabel Lee” is an agonizing look into the heart and soul of a man who is mourning the woman he loves. I say “loves” — present tense – because it’s clear that even though she’s gone, he’s still in love with her. And that’s what makes this poem so special. It’s not speaking of a love lost, but of a love that’s momentarily absent.

Poe hits the tone of this poem beautifully. It’s full of gorgeous imagery and exquisitely crafted verses. It’s lyrical and exceptionally moving. Poe strikes a balance of melancholy and sorrow, without letting the piece become depressing.

Irresistible to the hopeless romantics among us, “Annabel Lee” will appeal to all die-hard Poe fans alike. With it, Poe has once again left his unique, indelible mark on the soul of all who read his writing.

♦     ♦     ♦     ♦     ♦     ♦     ♦

Annabel Lee

It was many and many a year ago,
In a kingdom by the sea,
That a maiden there lived whom you may know
By the name of Annabel Lee;
And this maiden she lived with no other thought
Than to love and be loved by me.

I was a child and she was a child,
In this kingdom by the sea;

 I and my Annabel Lee;
With a love that the winged seraphs of heaven
Coveted her and me.

And this was the reason that, long ago,
In this kingdom by the sea,
A wind blew out of a cloud, chilling
My beautiful Annabel Lee;
So that her highborn kinsman came
And bore her away from me,
To shut her up in a sepulchre
In this kingdom by the sea.

The angels, not half so happy in heaven,
Went envying her and me-
Yes!- that was the reason (as all men know,
In this kingdom by the sea)
That the wind came out of the cloud by night,
Chilling and killing my Annabel Lee.

But our love it was stronger by far than the love
Of those who were older than we-
Of many far wiser than we-
And neither the angels in heaven above,
Nor the demons down under the sea,
Can ever dissever my soul from the soul
Of the beautiful Annabel Lee.

For the moon never beams without bringing me dreams
Of the beautiful Annabel Lee;
And the stars never rise but I feel the bright eyes
Of the beautiful Annabel Lee;
And so, all the night-tide, I lie down by the side

 In the sepulchre there by the sea,
In her tomb by the sounding sea.

♦     ♦     ♦     ♦     ♦     ♦     ♦

“For Annie” was a poem that I stumbled across in my reading one day. I had never heard of it, but when I read it, it made my heart ache. What an incredibly touching poem this is. I’m shocked that it isn’t more widely known amongst not only Poe’s work, but poetry in general.

There isn’t much for me to say about “For Annie”. The poem speaks for itself, possibly better than any other of Poe’s writings. This is truly a work of art. It’s sad and disturbing, but again, Poe has carefully navigated the fine line between pensive wistfulness and all-out despair.

While the topic is once again death, Poe has used the narrator’s positive thoughts of his Annie to provide a spark of hope, and by the time we reach the end of the poem, the reader is bathed with a true sense of peace. A remarkable feat, the likes of which only Edgar Allan Poe could accomplish. And what could be more beautiful and optimistic than finding comfort in spite of death, because you love and are loved?

♦     ♦     ♦     ♦     ♦     ♦     ♦

For Annie

Thank Heaven! the crisis-
The danger is past,
And the lingering illness
Is over at last-
And the fever called “Living”
Is conquered at last.

Sadly, I know
I am shorn of my strength,
And no muscle I move
As I lie at full length-
But no matter!-I feel
I am better at length.

The moaning and groaning,
The sighing and sobbing,
Are quieted now,
With that horrible throbbing
At heart:- ah, that horrible,
Horrible throbbing!

The sickness- the nausea-
The pitiless pain-
Have ceased, with the fever
That maddened my brain-
With the fever called “Living”
That burned in my brain.

And oh! of all tortures
That torture the worst
Has abated- the terrible
Torture of thirst
For the naphthaline river
Of Passion accurst:-
I have drunk of a water
That quenches all thirst:-

And ah! let it never
Be foolishly said
That my room it is gloomy
And narrow my bed;
For man never slept
In a different bed-
And, to sleep, you must slumber
In just such a bed.

My tantalized spirit
Here blandly reposes,
Forgetting, or never
Regretting its roses-
Its old agitations
Of myrtles and roses:

For now, while so quietly
Lying, it fancies
A holier odor
About it, of pansies-
A rosemary odor,
Commingled with pansies-
With rue and the beautiful
Puritan pansies.

And so it lies happily,
Bathing in many
A dream of the truth
And the beauty of Annie-
Drowned in a bath
Of the tresses of Annie.

When the light was extinguished,
She covered me warm,
And she prayed to the angels
To keep me from harm-
To the queen of the angels
To shield me from harm.

And I lie so composedly,
Now, in my bed,
(Knowing her love)
That you fancy me dead-
And I rest so contentedly,
Now, in my bed,
(With her love at my breast)
That you fancy me dead-
That you shudder to look at me,
Thinking me dead.

But my heart it is brighter
Than all of the many
Stars in the sky,
For it sparkles with Annie-

 With the thought of the light
Of the eyes of my Annie.

It’s clear that Poe understood what so few people do — what it’s like to truly ”LOVE” someone. Today this word gets tossed around as if it were common and unremarkable. Every day is filled with, “I love this, I love that, and I love you,” but, oh, how we’re misusing a word which, when used properly, speaks louder than anything you can imagine. It’s been cheapened and sullied, and no longer has any real meaning.

So what is the true meaning of the word “love”? If you want to know whether or not you love someone, ask yourself two questions: 1) “Can I live without this person?” And most importantly, 2) “Would I give my life for this person?” If you answer “no” to either of those questions, or you even have to ponder your answer, then you have no business allowing the words “I love you” to pass your lips. And feelings you have which are devoid of these two points are not love at all. Not real love. Not true love.

“But we loved with a love that was more than love.” When you feel THAT? Then, and only then, have you experienced love the way God intended it to be: pure, perfect, and true. Untainted by appearance or convenience. Unmarred by circumstance and situation. Love in its purest, truest form doesn’t need to be learned. It can’t be manufactured, and it surely can’t be pretended. And most importantly, it can’t be undone.

There is no falling out of love. There’s only never having loved in the first place.

♥ ♥

♦     ♦     ♦     ♦     ♦     ♦     ♦

Every artist needs a space. A space to call their own. A place that inspires creativity and is conducive to productivity. Every artist needs a studio.

Gather and hoard your inspirations as you live, then recapture them as needed in the studio.

~ Nita Engle

A few of my hoarded inspirations. Dracula, Nefertiti, a Doctor Who (10th Doctor of course) sonic screwdriver, and my Complete Definitive Collection Twilight Zone DVDs. Best birthday gift ever.

Duane Bryers is best known for his plus-size, red-headed pin-up, Hilda. These three wonderfully whimsical artist-pose pin-ups hang above my window. One of my favourite studio pieces is the stone bust (sporting my graduation cap!). A homemade Twilight Zone “Willoughby” sign hangs above the doorway, as does one of just a few sassy pin-up-style tin signs.

It doesn’t have to be fancy or filled with expensive art supplies, and you don’t have to put a lot of money into it. It doesn’t need to be a smarmy loft area, or a quaint little separate building in the backyard. It doesn’t need to have wall to wall windows or a huge work surface.

No, the only requirement of an artist’s studio is that it reflect the personality and taste of the artist who works there. As the artist, it’s the one place you should be completely comfortable in. It needs to be what YOU want, what YOU like, and most importantly, the place you’re going to want to go and work.

All artists are different. Different styles, different techniques, different inspirations, different needs. So no two studios will be alike. My studio is where I spend the bulk of my time. It’s MY space, filled with the things I enjoy. Being in that room makes me want to be creative, and that’s the whole point of having a work space.

So how about a peek inside my studio?

What you’ll see when you walk in

Too many artists get seduced by sunlight and have to continually adjust for light variations. The lighting conditions in [my studio] are perfect. It never changes from day to night. I always know the color on the canvas is what I want it to be.

~ Jack Cassinetto

Before we look at the fun stuff, let me impart a little wisdom here. That quote is SO true. One of the biggest misconceptions in the art world is that natural light is the best light source to work by. If you’ve ever actually tried to work in front of a huge window, you’ll know that simply isn’t the case. Natural light is bright and harsh. It can be blinding and overpowering, it distorts colours and casts shadows which are difficult to work around.

As you can see from the photo, I too was initially seduced by this supposed “Artist’s Choice” of lighting. The first sunny morning I sat down to work at my desk, I knew I’d made a big mistake in believing the hype. Painting, sketching, or even using my computer before noon? Forget it. There’s just too much light. And my five-foot picture window happens to be facing east, compounding the problem. A large window has its benefits, and working in the afternoon when the light is less intense isn’t too bad. But take it from me, it is less than ideal. My next studio will rely on artificial light which I will strategically place to avoid things like hand shadows and glares.

Okay. There’s my lesson for the day. Now, sit back, relax, and we’ll take a tour of my creative space.

At one end of my studio is something you’ll find in practically every room of my house – a bookcase. I have an actual library upstairs, and it’s a fair size, but let’s face it. Unless your name is Belle and you’re married to the Beast, your library is going to have to be of a moderate size. Meaning books will likely spill into many of your other rooms.

You can learn a lot about a person by snooping through their books. This bookcase is art-related only. Well, related to MY art. I love Bible symbolism and the Latin language, so I have a Strong’s Concordance and an English/Latin dictionary mixed in with the other more conventional art books. A few anatomy books can be found, as well as books focusing on my favourite artists — Da Vinci, Caravaggio, Michelangelo, Bob Ross. An illustrated history of the first Crusades and a collection of horror movie posters are in there as well. Practical and inspirational.

And of course in my studio there was bound to be a Bible. Displayed on its own shelf with my cool Angels and Demons bookends.

I looked at my studio as a painting. Now whenever I need a break, I paint this area where I just love to be.

~ Richard Poink

At the opposite end is a comfortable spot – a necessity in a studio as far as I’m concerned. As I’ve said in past art-related posts, 50% of the work you do when creating something is in the designing stage. So a quiet spot in a room which is meant to inspire you, can be the perfect place to brainstorm ideas and do a little design work.

In a painting studio, you have to have a display wall to show off some of the goods. Prove that you do at least SOME work in there. It can be tempting to sit around watching episodes of the Twilight Zone all day long. Not that I’ve ever done that…

Speaking of the Twilight Zone…

Above the smaller window is a little collection of fun things, including two of my favourite possessions: a mini TZ Mystic Seer and a Howling Man doll. There are no words to express how fond I am of those. A plastic raven (looks more like a crow, but beggars can’t be choosers – it was a dollar!) paying homage to Edgar Allan Poe, as well as a few other items that mean something to me. I especially like the quote on the little pin attached to my Nancy Drew 75^th Anniversary ornament, which says, “The fact that no one understands you doesn’t make you an artist.”

Here you can see my marvellous revolving book stand. A birthday gift a few years ago from my dad, who made it for me. I designed the panels in a Byzantine/illuminated manuscript style. Each side features a favourite Bible verse and one of the four living creatures of Daniel and Revelation. There’s a compass rose on top, and each of the panels can be propped open to hold a book. One of my favourite pieces and very helpful when working with multiple reference books. And if you’re interested in a closer look at that large painting on the left, “Armageddon“, I have a number of posts written about it.

Without the studio, however humble, the room where the imagination can enter cannot exist

~ Anna Hansen

All this practical stuff is nice, but there are more fun things in my studio as well. Case in point, the newest addition: a fabulous pair of fuchsia heels!

My gorgeous pink shoes, bought to be displayed. On the wall is a lithograph print of a painting I was commissioned to do: “Still Life Portrait: Megan”. And below the shelf is another of my favourite Duane Bryers’ Hilda pin-ups.

I do like figurines and toys (in case you hadn’t noticed), and here are a few more. I made the prop “I Dream of Jeannie” bottle many years ago. I’m a big Tinkerbell fan (Peter Pan is my favourite Disney story). But my Jasmine Becket-Griffith “Once Upon A Midnight Dreary” figure is awesome. All of Poe’s “The Raven” is written on that paper scroll.

But wait. Something’s missing here. It’s a studio, where I paint. So where are the paints?

Housed in two custom built paint bottle-sized cabinets, hung on either side of the picture window, are the paints. Acrylics, arranged by colour, from dark to light. What can I say? Some people like to be messy and chaotic. I enjoy order and neatness, especially in my work area.

An artist cannot do anything slovenly.

~ Jane Austen

In most studios, this would likely be the end of the tour. You’d have seen everything there is to see. But… this isn’t most studios. Thanks for stopping by. Visitors are always welcome. Be sure and look UP on your way out.

The ceiling is big time real estate. No sense in wasting it! And don’t you dare judge me for the Edward poster. Those books were amazing.

Studio Ghosts: When you’re in the studio painting, there are a lot of people in there with you – your teachers, friends, painters from history, critics… and one by one if you’re really painting, they walk out. And if you’re REALLY painting, YOU walk out.

~ Philip Guston

♦     ♦     ♦     ♦     ♦     ♦     ♦

When you hear “Friday the 13th”, what comes to mind? Bad luck? Superstition? Black cats? A gruesome movie franchise involving a serial killer in a hockey mask and fake blood by the bucket-full? Or maybe the season premiere of Syfy’s spooky mystery show, Haven? (Yah!)

I know. Most, if not all, of the above, right? But do you know where the idea that Friday the 13th is unlucky originates? I’m betting probably not.

All of superstition is rooted in some sort of fact. And the dreaded, much-feared Friday the 13th is no different.

On this day, September 14, in 1307, King Philip IV “The Fair” of France (1268 – 1314) issued a sealed mandate to his police officers throughout France, asking that discrete preparations be made for the arrest of every French Templar at dawn on October 13, 1307.

On Friday the 13th, Templar Grand Master, Jacques de Molay and every Templar in France were thrown in jail. Of nearly 5,000 French Templars, fewer than 20 escaped.

Jacques de Molay

Founded in 1119, the Knights Templar (or Poor Knights of the Temple of Solomon, or Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Jesus Christ) were a religious military order of knighthood and began at the time of the Crusades.

Crusader

Jerusalem, still known today as the Holy City, was a place of pilgrimage for Christians at the time. But these peasants were often endangered by marauding Muslim bands. After a group of 700 pilgrims had been attacked on the eve of Easter in 1119, a number of knights led by Hugues de Payens – the first leader of the Templars — formed an order to protect the people who wished to travel to and from the Holy Land.

Hugues de Payens

Over the years, they were able to expand and diversify. At their height, the Templars numbered about 20,000 knights.

In time, they came to acquire considerable wealth; they owned much property thanks to the generosity of kings and nobles. The Templars’ military strength enabled them to safely collect, store and transport bullion to and from Europe and the Holy Land. The Templars were eventually used as bankers by both kings and pilgrims alike.

But being in a position of such great financial power didn’t come without consequence.

The Templars had enemies, and by 1304, false rumours began circulating throughout Europe. Enter King Philip IV. The allegations against the Templars included heresy, sodomy, unspeakable crimes against God, Christ, the Church and Europe, as well as witchcraft, treason, sexual perversion, and many other such heinous offences. King Philip, using his influence over Pope Clement V, issued a warrant for the arrest of the Templars, to be carried out on Friday, October 13, 1307.

Philip was a war-monger and his exploits left he and his kingdom in near financial ruin. His attack on the Templars brought him substantial financial gain. By his own admission, he believed himself to be called by God to act as judge of the morals and welfare of his subjects. He believed that he and his kingdom were guarded by God and were chosen as special defenders of the Catholic faith. He was proud, and being inspired by his great sense of mission, he was receptive to accusations of sin and heresy brought against others. And he was ruthless in the persecution of those charged with such failings.

The story of the Templars is not unlike that of the Salem Massachusetts Witch Trials of 1692. Some Templars admitted to the charges. Clement himself heard damning confessions from the mouths of representatives of the Order, but only after many, if not all, of the men were tortured.

Interrogation of Jacques de Molay

This was during the time of the Inquisition, where torture was the legal and accepted method of conducting interrogations. Creative torture techniques were plentiful.

Perhaps the most well-known device of torture was the rack. Bound by the ankles and wrists, the victims were stretched until their arms and legs were dislocated from their sockets. They were often subjected to further torture while so painfully confined: being burned or having their finger/toe nails ripped out.

The Strappado

Another popular method of torture was the strappado. After binding the hands behind the back with one end of a rope and throwing the other end over a ceiling beam, the victim would be hoisted up and then dropped—then yanked to a halt inches from the floor, cracking and dislocating arms, shoulders, wrists and ribs. Then of course you had the usual beatings, starvation, irons and chains, deplorable conditions — run-of-the-mill stuff.

Many of the Templars died in prison, and some desperately took their own lives. And some, including Jacques de Molay, were burned at the stake. But after the torture-induced confessions, many Templars retracted their earlier admissions, insisting that the Order was innocent and that the confessions had been made because of the torture and not due to guilt. Molay and Preceptor of Normandy Geoffroi de Charney were among these. On March 18, 1314, they loudly proclaimed their innocence and orthodoxy as they were burned to death on Ile de Javiaux, a small island in the Seine, drawing much reverence from the crowd of onlookers who collected their ashes as holy relics. The four ranking Templar leaders were tried that day. Two died, and the other two spent the rest of their lives in prison. The Knights Templar were no more.

14th century depiction of the burning of Jacques de Molay and Geoffroi de Charney

That fateful Friday morning on the 13th of October, 1307, is still remembered today as the unluckiest of days. It struck such a cord that it birthed a superstition. The beginning of the end of the dutiful and brave Knights Templar is the reason Friday the 13th is considered unlucky.

706 years ago today, the wheels were set in motion by a greedy and ungodly king, who let his lust for money destroy the lives of these men of God. But perhaps the Templars saw justice after all.

A number of legends were quickly birthed regarding these men who were still highly regarded throughout Europe.

The most poignant of these stories is perhaps the curse thought to have been uttered by Jacques de Molay. As he was engulfed in flames, it is said he demanded that if the Order was innocent, that the pope be summoned before God’s court within forty days, and the king within the year, to answer for their vicious crimes. In thirty-three days, Pope Clement was dead. Eight months later, King Philip died also. Philip’s throne was succeeded by three of his sons. All were dead within fourteen years of Philip’s death, and with them ended the 300-year reign of a prominent royal family.

Legend? Fact? Or maybe God’s poetic sense of justice for His people …

“As He then drove out with His mighty hands the principalities of darkness, so now does He attack their disciples, the sons of disobedience, banishing them by the hands of His protectors.”

The Twilight Zone has a little something for everyone. Mystery, drama, morality, redemption, and a touch of fun. At the helm was series’ creator Rod Serling, who along with a number of other supremely talented writers – Charles Beaumont and Richard Matheson, to name a few – penned the richly chilling, thought-provoking scripts my best friend Paul and I have come to hold so dear.

But what really made the stories of the Twilight Zone hit home were the characters. Perhaps you felt for them or related to their particular situation or circumstance; maybe they inspired you, either in action or with words; or perhaps you loved to hate them. Whatever the case though, every character is only as good as the actor or actress portraying them. And while the Zone boasts an impressive roster of famous celebrity men – William Shatner, Burgess Meredith, Jack Klugman, Jonathan Winters – there is no shortage of glamourous leading ladies in the Fifth Dimension.

Today I have a very special treat in store for my fellow Seekers of Truth. Many of you know my friend Paul from his blog, “Shadow & Substance”, or his Twitter page, @TheNightGallery. Paul and I have many things in common, but the one thing that stands out most is our mutual love and admiration for all things Twilight Zone. So I asked Paul if he’d like to join me and guest-blog on Seeker of Truth. Thankfully, he said yes. A very enthusiastic “yes”, I might add. And I enthusiastically replied, “YAH!”

We do a lot of collaborating behind the scenes when it comes to both of our respective blogs, but we haven’t had an opportunity to showcase what we can do together, in front of the camera, so to speak.

Until now. So submitted for your approval, allow Paul and I to introduce you to the…

Mannequin, carnival dancer, soldier, witch, patient, wife, ghost, traveller, and the Devil herself – a collection of memorable leading lady characters.

In the dimension of imagination, you’ll find these women in some of the Zone’s most memorable tales. Both the characters themselves and the actresses who play them exude a kind of inexplicable allure. So for me it just seemed perfect to pair them with another inexplicable allure – the pin-up-girl-type illustration. I have been a fan of pin-up art forever. Pin-ups are subtle sexy. To me, a pin-up should be a sexy lady depicted with an air of mystery about her. Nude pin-ups are not sexy. The clothing is as much a part of the pin-up appeal as the pose and girl herself. So I’ve made all our favourite TZ ladies into classic pin-up girls. These are all original sketches that I created for this post.

Paul is co-writing this piece with me, so to make it a little easier for our readers to know who’s speaking, all of Paul’s text will be in white. Paul, today you are an honourary Seeker of Truth, my friend.

Thank you for inviting me, Wendy. As an unabashed fan of your blog, I feel privileged to join you for this special post. Your passion for art, faith and pop culture makes your work uniquely appealing. And as a diehard Twilight Zone fan, I feel like I’ve long been preparing for a role as a Seeker of Truth.

George Clayton Johnson, who wrote such memorable TZ episodes as “Kick the Can” and “Nothing in the Dark”, called the show “wisdom fiction”, and I believe our blogs are popular specifically because they delve into this wisdom — how it works and why. Now, at first glance, the idea of doing “pin-ups” of TZ heroines might sound as if we’ve moved pretty far afield of this mission, but I think it makes perfect sense.

Part of what made TZ work, after all, were the people at the heart of the stories. Serling, Matheson, Beaumont and the other writers sketched some marvelous characters — characters brought to life by some amazingly talented men and women. Today, through the magic of your artwork, we pay tribute to the actresses — their beauty, certainly, but also the heart and soul BEHIND the pretty faces.

◊   ◊   ◊   ◊   ◊

Anne Francis/Marsha White/Jess-Belle

“The After Hours” and “Jess-Belle”

Season 1, Episode 34 and Season 4, Episode 7

“When you’re on the outside, everything seems so normal.”

If you bought a gift at a department store, saw it was damaged, went to return it, and recognized a mannequin as the sales woman who helped you, you’d quite sensibly conclude that you were seeing things. And if you were madly in love with a man betrothed to another woman, and the local witch offered you a too-good-to-be-true way to make that man your own, you’d probably laugh in her face.

Unless, of course, you’re Marsha White and Jess-Belle, and you’ve just taken your first steps into the fifth dimension. Then you’d know that the sales woman IS a mannequin — and so are you. And you’d not only believe the local witch, you’d accept her offer, only to discover that you were destined to turn into a leopard every night.

Anchoring “The After Hours” and “Jess-Belle” is Anne Francis, one of the most popular actresses of the 1960s. Her striking blue eyes (noticeable even in the stark B&W photography of the Zone) and porcelain features are abetted by a natural charm that helps us identify strongly with her characters.

We fear for her when she builds to a state of near-hysteria as Marsha, trapped in a dark and empty department store. We weep for her as she realizes she’s been tricked as the raven-haired Jess-Belle.

Although Francis’ career included a LOT of television work, it began with one of the most famous sci-fi films of the ’50s: Forbidden Planet. Roles on Rawhide, The Untouchables, Route 66 and dozens of other series followed. Francis even starred in a series of her own, playing a sexy private eye in Honey West. She later graced episodes of Dallas, Fantasy Island and Murder She Wrote.

“Was it fun?”, one of Francis’ fellow mannequins asks her. “Ever so much fun”, she replies. Watching her work on the Twilight Zone, we can’t help but agree.

◊   ◊   ◊   ◊   ◊

Elizabeth Montgomery/The Woman

“Two”

Season 3, Episode 1

“Precrassny.”

With only a single word of dialogue for the entire episode, Elizabeth Montgomery captured our hearts. Acting alongside Charles Bronson, who’s billed simply as “The Man”, Montgomery is a Russian soldier left alive and alone in the aftermath of a devastating world war. Still beautiful even in her tattered uniform, Montgomery spends the episode wandering through a deserted town, interacting in a very nervous and volatile way with Bronson.

There’s much to be said for any actor/actress who delivers a beautiful, convincing performance with little to no dialogue. And I think all will agree that Montgomery delivers.

She appeared in this episode of the Twilight Zone in 1961, but her big break came in 1964 when she starred in the sitcom Bewitched as Samantha Stephens, wife of Darrin, first portrayed by another TZ alumni, Dick York (“A Penny For Your Thoughts”).

In 2005, a bronze statue of Montgomery as witch Samantha riding a broom, was erected in Salem, Massachusetts.

◊   ◊   ◊   ◊   ◊

Suzanne Lloyd/Maya

“Perchance to Dream”

Season 1, Episode 9

“I know a lot of things. I’m Maya.”

We instinctively recoil in frightening situations, understandably concerned with our own safety. Yet as Edgar Allan Poe demonstrated so masterfully in “The Imp of the Perverse”, we also experience an inexplicable urge to embrace danger. Charles Beaumont explored that same paradoxical urge when he introduced us to the alluring Maya the Cat Girl in one of the most visually striking Twilight Zone episodes, “Perchance to Dream“.

Maya haunts Edward Hall, a man with a bad heart who just wants a good night’s sleep. The reason he can’t get one? His overactive imagination. In his dreams, he’s met Maya at an odd and mysterious carnival. He’s under doctor’s orders to avoid excitement, but Maya insists on dragging him into the fun house and on the roller coaster. When she takes an unexpected walk into the real world, Edward’s fate seems pre-ordained.

Suzanne Lloyd’s portrayal of Maya dramatizes his dilemma to perfection. Only a very beautiful actress could make us believe Edward’s bizarre desire for thrills that place him in peril, but Lloyd tinges that attractiveness with an unmistakable sense of danger. We know that Edward should resist her seductive charm, but as Lloyd purrs each line, we know he’s being inescapably ensnared.

Lloyd brought the same unique brand of enticement to many other TV shows in the early ’60s, such as Gunsmoke, Bonanza, 77 Sunset Strip, Maverick and Perry Mason, to name only a few. But as Maya, she put an indelible face on the idea of “fatal attraction” long before the 1987 movie of the same name.

◊   ◊   ◊   ◊   ◊

Inger Stevens/Nan Adams/Jana Loren

“The Hitch-hiker” and “The Lateness of the Hour”

Season 1, Episode 16 and Season 2, Episode 8

“The fear has left me now. I’m numb, I have no feeling. It’s as if someone had pulled out some kind of a plug in me and everything– emotion, feeling, fear– has drained out.”

“The Hitch-hiker” is, to me, one of the quintessential scary episodes of the Twilight Zone. Nan Adams, played by Swedish actress Inger Stevens, is haunted by a mysterious hitch-hiker whose intentions, as it turns out, aren’t malevolent. He’s just trying to ease her into the realization that she’s actually dead. Stevens takes us on a full circle emotional journey, hitting on fear, shock, disbelief and finally acceptance. A stellar performance.

Inger is one of 35 actresses who appeared in more than one TZ (and possibly the most recognizable). Her second appearance was “The Lateness of the Hour” (one of six episodes shot on videotape instead of film), in which she portrays Jana, a girl who discovers that her parents have been keeping a secret from her — she’s actually a robot.

Stevens’ signature role came in 1963 on ABC’s The Farmer’s Daughter, where she played Katy Holstrum. It ran for three years and also starred TZ’s resident Major (“Five Characters in Search of an Exit”), William Windom.

Inger’s life came to a tragic end on April 30, 1970, when she died as the result of a suspected suicide. The actress was only 34.

◊   ◊   ◊   ◊   ◊

Donna Douglas/Janet Tyler

“Eye of the Beholder”

Season 2, Episode 6

“Why do we have to look like this?”

Poor Janet Tyler. She suffers the unspeakable misfortune of being “ugly” in a society that worships beauty. In fact, she’s forced to undergo a series of operations to “fix” her appearance and make her less repellant. Listening to her heartfelt pleas to be “cured”, to somehow blend in with society, we can’t help but feel sorry for her. And when she explodes over the unfairness of it all, we’re struck by the injustice.

And that’s before we even get a chance to see her face. In a series famous for its twist endings, “Eye of the Beholder” gives us one of the most memorable in TV history: Miss Tyler, you see, is actually quite beautiful … and the doctors and nurses have grotesque, pig-like faces.

Donna Douglas gets relatively little screen time (Maxine Stuart played all the under-the-bandages scenes), but her touching portrayal of the “ugly” Miss Tyler is part of the reason this episode has become so legendary. Douglas obviously is blessed with good looks, but she has the acting talent to match. The terror and sorrow on her face and in her voice help us sympathize with Miss Tyler even more.

As an example of how willing Douglas was to go the extra mile, consider the fact that her voice was supposed to be dubbed by Stuart until she surprised director Douglas Heyes with a perfect impression — and was then allowed to speak all the post-operation lines herself. Donna returned to TZ for a bit part in “Cavender is Coming”.

She went on to star in her most famous role, that of Elly May Clampett on The Beverly Hillbillies (with another TZ alum, Buddy Ebsen). She appeared in more than a dozen other series before that, including 77 Sunset Strip and Dr. Kildare, and even had a part in Frankie and Johnny with Elvis Presley.

But to TZ fans, she’ll always be poor Janet Tyler, ostracized for the crime of being ugly.

◊   ◊   ◊   ◊   ◊

Patricia Breslin/Pat Carter

“Nick of Time” and “No Time Like the Past”

Season 2, Episode 7 and Season 4, Episode 10

“It doesn’t matter whether it can foretell the future. What matters is whether you believe more in luck and in fortune than you do in yourself.”

Patricia Breslin also has two TZs under her belt. She’s best known as the supportive yet level-headed Pat Carter, wife of superstitious Don (William Shatner), in the classic episode “Nick of Time”, where she goes head to head with the all-powerful allure of the Mystic Seer. But she also filled the lesser-known role of teacher Abigail Sloan in the hour-long season 4 time-travel episode, “No Time Like the Past”.

Breslin’s strong yet subtle portrayal of a wife who’s determined to keep her husband’s feet planted in reality is one of my favourite female TZ performances. Pat is a lovely, demure woman, but when it comes right down to brass tacks, she’s determined to save her husband from the dangerous, slippery slope he’s sliding down. Breslin delivers some of the most powerful lines of dialogue the series has to offer. And she does it with a harmonious blend of grace, conviction, and a touch of desperation.

After her time on the Twilight Zone, Breslin played Laura Brooks in the ABC prime time soap opera, Peyton Place, following that up with a more major role in another ABC soap, the still-running General Hospital. From 1965 to 1969, she was nurse Meg Baldwin.

Richard Matheson – writer of “Nick of Time” — enjoyed Breslin’s performance as Pat Carter so much that he originally wanted her for the role of Shatner’s wife a second time in the fan-favourite (also Matheson-penned) episode “Nightmare at 20,000 Feet”. I must disagree with Matheson though. Personally, I don’t believe that Breslin was right for the role of Julia Wilson, and I would hate to see her memorable role in “Nick of Time” having to compete with another, perhaps more iconic portrayal in “Nightmare”. No, Pat Carter is a heroine deserving of her own spotlight.

◊   ◊   ◊   ◊   ◊

Vera Miles/Millicent Barnes

“Mirror Image”

Season 1, Episode 21

“Delusions, that’s what they are. They’re delusions.”

Woman waits for bus. Woman starts seeing her double. Woman doubts her sanity.

A simple premise, really, but run through Serling’s typewriter, “Mirror Image” becomes an unforgettable exercise in existential terror. We’re as much in the dark as Millicent Barnes as she tries to make sense of the situation. She goes to check her bag … and the annoyed attendant tells her she already has. She steps into the restroom … and catches a glimpse of her duplicate in the mirror. What’s going ON here?

Millicent has a theory. It’s something she once read: there’s another plane of existence out there. We each have a double in it, and sometimes that double crosses into our world, and tries to take over. Paul Grinstead, a friendly fellow bus passenger, is concerned that this poor woman has gone mad. He calls for the police to take her away — moments before seeing his OWN double.

Vera Miles turns in a wonderfully controlled performance of a woman trying not to panic in the face of a frightening and confusing turn of events. Watching her calmly explain the theory of parallel universes, it’s hard not to conclude that she IS mad, despite our having just seen the same strange sights that she has. Miles expertly keeps us balanced on that edge of doubt as we try to figure out if she’s right … or crazy.

Unlike most of the other pin-ups presented here, Miles was well-known to audiences when she appeared on TZ, starring in such movies as Alfred Hitchcock’s The Wrong Man (with Henry Fonda) and John Ford’s masterful Western The Searchers. But her most famous role was that of Lila Crane in Hitchcock’s Psycho. (It had already been filmed by the time “Mirror Image” aired, but not yet released.)

Easy to imagine Millicent Barnes sharing a padded room with Norman Bates, isn’t it?

◊   ◊   ◊   ◊   ◊

Julie Newmar/Miss Devlin

“Of Late I Think of Cliffordville”

Season 4, Episode 14

“I wish for you everything you deserve.”

The fact that you already bargained your soul away doesn’t mean that Miss Devlin won’t make an exception and negotiate an alternate form of payment for her services. You’ll find that she’s very accommodating.

Under the momentary guise of a travel agent, Julie Newmar’s sultry Miss Devlin, makes a deal with one William J. Feathersmith: She’ll send him back in time to start his life anew, in exchange for a simple monetary transaction – it’ll cost nearly his entire net worth.

He takes the deal, but Feathersmith soon learns that this lady-Devil has taught him a rather poignant lesson, the likes of which can be found only … in the Twilight Zone.

Newmar was a real-life pin-up girl, posing for various things, including a 1968 issue of Playboy. But Newmar’s most memorable role is that of sexy villainess Catwoman in the 1966 cult classic Batman series starring Adam West. The original femme fatale (her role was taken over by Eartha Kitt in the third and final season), mesmerized audiences with her purrrrfectly tantalizing rolling “Rs” and that skin-tight catsuit with the belt slung low on the hip to emphasize her amazing figure.

And I’m certain the sassy, classy Miss Devlin would have gladly donned a pair of Julie’s “Nudemar” pantyhose, patented in 1977, which she claimed would “make your derriere look like an apple instead of a ham sandwich”.

◊   ◊   ◊   ◊   ◊

Working on this post has given me a greater appreciation for the actresses who graced episodes of The Twilight Zone. The “subtle sexy” attraction of a pin-up is well-suited to the classier age in which The Twilight Zone was produced, and Wendy’s talented work has captured this era beautifully.

I also found it very interesting to learn more about the women who helped bring these stories to life. I know the episodes cold, of course, but much of the other movie and TV work these women had done was fairly new to me. It made me realize how hard they worked to develop their craft, and to give these small-screen tales a bigger-than-life dimension.

Most of all, I enjoyed collaborating with my best friend, the one and only Wendy. My “Gal Friday” has long provided invaluable assistance to me on MY blog, so it was a real pleasure to contribute something so substantial to HER blog. I hope this is the first of many joint blog posts with her!

Oh, yes, this is only just the beginning! Many more Paul&Wendy collaborations to come!

A very special thanks to Paul for being a part of this special post. It was tremendously enjoyable to work with him. And who better to help me spotlight any aspect of TZ than Mr. Twilight Zone himself?

We watch these actresses on screen again and again, but it’s important to recognize that they’re so much more than a bunch of pretty faces. We admire their beauty, yes, just like we admire a classic pin-up or a beautiful painting. But there is so much more to these ladies than meets the eye. As with any work of art, you have to look deeper to truly appreciate what you’re looking at. What’s behind that lovely facade?

Both the unforgettable characters and the incredibly talented actresses who portray them have substance. And in the land of both shadow AND substance, well… that’s what you need.

A mannequin, a carnival dancer, a soldier, a witch, a patient, a wife, a ghost, a traveller, and the Devil herself. Tonight’s cast of leading ladies in the Fifth Dimension – known as – The Twilight Zone.

◊   ◊   ◊

… † …

“You’ve got Poe, TZ, horror movie posters, and a pretty face. You’re like a classy, non-slutty-looking Elvira!”

Hello, darlings.

It’s me, your classy, pretty-faced, non-slutty-looking Elvira of the blogosphere here. (Thanks to Paul for my new moniker! ;D). October has finally descended upon us and I have a wonderful, spooky, horror-themed month of posts planned for all my fellow Seekers of Truth. Everything will be leading up to a majorly fun and informative Halloween post on the 31^st. Film fans? This one’s for you.

To kick things off, we’re going to be taking a look at three of the most memorable, influential men in the horror genre. They also happen to be my three favourite actors: Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, and Vincent Price.

Lee and Price shared May 27th birthdays, and Cushing’s was close by, on May 26th. Coincidence…?

Which is my favourite? Sorry, but I can’t choose between these masters of horror. Asking me to pick my favourite is like asking me to choose between Da Vinci and Caravaggio! Each is my favourite in a different way and for different reasons. Lee is the quintessential Dracula. Peter Cushing’s Van Helsing was clever and fearless. And Vincent Price… well… he could spin a straw script into gold.

Today we’ll celebrate the lives and works of this menacing trio. There are two films that showcase the three talents together (albeit never in the same scene at the same time): “Scream and Scream Again” (1970) and “House of the Long Shadows” (1983). The former was billed as “Triple distilled horror . . . as powerful as a vat of boiling acid,” while the latter promised that there was “Room for every nightmare . . . A nightmare in every room.”

It takes a certain style and flair to act convincingly in horror. An actor must possess an innate ability to both soothe and thrill, comfort and scare. To innocently draw you in and then unmercifully hold you there against your will. Ah, but that’s the trick, isn’t it? To make you think you’re being held against your will, when in actuality, you can’t imagine any other place on earth you’d rather be.

Today’s tale of the men of horror, the macabre tales they tell, and the monsters we love to fear.

 … † …

Peter Cushing

1913 – 1994

I’ve harmed nobody, just robbed a few graves!

~ Baron Frankenstein (Peter Cushing), “The Curse of Frankenstein” (1957)

When I hear the word horror, I immediately think of Hammer Films. And the first name that comes to mind when I think of Hammer, is their most prolific leading man of the macabre, Peter Cushing.

He was Baron Victor Frankenstein in Hammer’s Frankenstein saga, taking up the role on six separate occasions. He has staked, decapitated, burnt, and battled a gaggle of galloping ghouls, spooks and monsters throughout his career. But without a doubt, Peter Cushing will forever be best remembered as Count Dracula’s ultimate foe, the brave and beloved Van Helsing.

Since the death of Jonathan Harker, Count Dracula, the propagator of this unspeakable evil, has disappeared. He must be found and destroyed!

~ Van Helsing (Peter Cushing), “Horror of Dracula” (1958)

Cushing dusted off his deluxe vampire killing kit many times and for a number of different production companies (Hammer and Amicus most notably), battling the forces of undead evil in both Victorian and modern-day England, and even China. But most fans will agree that Peter Cushing’s Van Helsing was born to tangle with Christopher Lee’s Dracula. And we were fortunate enough to see this perfect pairing in three of the seven Hammer films which starred Christopher Lee as the Count — “Horror of Dracula” (1958), “Dracula A.D. 1972 (1972) and “The Satanic Rites of Dracula” (1973). (A post dedicated to Lee’s Hammer Dracula films coming up next week!)

Cushing and Lee, were good friends off screen, and it certainly showed in their on-screen chemistry. Even when they were locked in a life-or-death struggle as mortal enemies, the two meshed beautifully. And fortunately, their dynamic duo prowess wasn’t limited to the Dracula/Van Helsing realm. There are a number of Cushing/Lee collaborations for us to enjoy.

The following are the 22 films the prestigious couple appeared in together, although not always as a pair: “Hamlet” (1948), “Moulin Rouge” (1952), “The Curse of Frankenstein” (1957), “Horror of Dracula” (1958), “The Hound of the Baskervilles” (1959), “The Mummy” (1959), “The Gorgon” (1964), “Dr. Terror’s House of Horrors” (1965), “The Skull” (1965), “She” (1965), “Night of the Big Heat” (1967), “Scream and Scream Again” (1970), “One More Time” (1970), “The House that Dripped Blood” (1971), “I, Monster” (1971), “Dracula A.D. 1972” (1972), “The Creeping Flesh” (1973), “Horror Express” (1972), “Nothing But the Night” (1973), “The Satanic Rites of Dracula” (1973), “Arabian Adventure” (1979), “House of the Long Shadows” (1983).

Cushing and Lee are synonymous with horror. The two just complemented each other so well. Peter Cushing’s illustrious, albeit gory, career with Hammer and horror began with the 1957 film “The Curse of Frankenstein”. It was Hammer’s first colour horror film, and it kicked off this gruesome twosome’s partnership in the land of blood, boobs and burial shrouds.

This film has been credited with resurrecting the horror genre (not unlike Doctor Frankenstein bringing his monster back to life!) which had remained mostly dormant and forgotten since the Hollywood horror heyday of the late 30s and early 40s.

A retelling of the classic Frankenstein story, the film follows Baron Victor Frankenstein (played brilliantly by Cushing) in his quest to play God. After successfully bringing a dog back to life, Victor is determined to create a human being from scratch. He painstakingly chooses body parts, including the brain of an aging professor, and assembles his monster (played by Christopher Lee).

Unfortunately, after a fight ensues between Frankenstein and his former mentor and assistant Paul Krempe (Robert Urquhart), the highly intelligent brain is badly damaged.

The monster indeed lives, but thanks to the damaged brain, the monster is uncontrollable and wreaks havoc across the countryside, maiming and murdering. The monster is eventually destroyed (and will not be played by Lee again), but in classic Hammer fashion, a number of sequels would follow. And unlike the earlier Universal Frankenstein franchise, it is the Doctor’s character who is recurring and the monsters who change.

And Cushing, whose portrayal of the passionately obsessive doctor was pitch-perfect, would reprise the role of the Baron in the remaining five films. (1970′s “The Horror of Frankenstein” in which Cushing was absent, was actually a remake of “The Curse of Frankenstein”, not a part of the ongoing series).

Peter Cushing was, in my opinion, one of the greatest actors who ever lived. Some of his major motion picture credits include Grand Moff Tarkin in “Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope” (1977), and a much more benevolent Doctor in 1965′s “Doctor Who and the Daleks”, then again the following year in the sequel “Doctor Who: Daleks — Invasion Earth 2150 A.D.”. But much like my other two men featured in this post, horror was his forte.

In the spring of 1978, director John Carpenter began casting a tiny low-budget movie about an on-the-loose serial killer. The result would become one of the most iconic, recognizable horror films of all time. The film was of course “Halloween”, starring Donald Pleasence as the formidable Dr. Sam Loomis. But Pleasence wasn’t Carpenter’s first choice for the role. Peter Cushing was. The now-famous director had been a fan of Cushing’s since he first saw “Curse of Frankenstein” at 9 years old. Unfortunately, the film proved to be too underwhelming and unimpressive for Cushing’s agent and he turned down the role. What I wouldn’t give to have seen Cushing’s interpretation of the good Doctor. Or Christopher Lee’s for that matter. Carpenter offered the role to him as well. Lee also turned him down, but later said it was the biggest mistake of his career.

Here is a selected filmography of some of my favourite Peter Cushing films and the roles he played in them. My top three are marked with an *:

*****

But the man who, in radiant technicolour, brought to life Van Helsing, Frankenstein and Sherlock Holmes, just couldn’t stay away. Returning to the realm of horror one last time, Cushing’s final project would also prove to be a collaboration with his best friend and career-long partner in crime, Christopher Lee.

In May of 1994, the pair recorded “Flesh and Blood: The Hammer Heritage of Horror”, a two-part documentary which looked at the history of Hammer and their many gloriously gory films. Lee and Cushing narrate off-camera, their two distinct voices melding in melodious harmony. The documentary includes interviews with many of Hammer’s most memorable stars including Veronica Carlson and Ingrid Pitt, as well as with directors, producers, and other people involved with the well-built monster that was Hammer Films.

But as usual, the duo stole the show, making the documentary a must-see for any fan of the pair. It aired on British TV on August 6, 1994. Peter Cushing died on August 11, just a few days after his final credit ran: “Narrated by Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee.”

A gentle manner and a kind soul. This was Peter Cushing. The man who disliked horror films himself, took great pride in making them “because they give pleasure to people.” His criteria for accepting roles wasn’t based on what he wanted to do, but on what he thought other people would enjoy seeing him do.

His characters were often the voice of reason in a terror-filled situation. But don’t let his calm, cool and collected demeanour fool you. Van Helsing packs one HELL of a right stab. Straight through the heart.

He really was the gentlest and most generous of men. It could be said of him that he died because he was too good for this world.

~ Christopher Lee on Peter Cushing

… † …

Christopher Lee

b. 1922

The Angel of Death was summoned. He cannot return empty-handed.

~ Duc de Richleau (Christopher Lee), “The Devil Rides Out” (1968)

Christopher Lee is probably best known for his recurring role as Count Dracula. He donned the famous black cape an impressive seven times for the British company Hammer Films alone over a 15 year period. The first film, “Horror of Dracula”  (definitely the best of the bunch), was released in 1958. It was another eight years before Lee would bare his fangs again in “Dracula, Prince of Darkness” (1966), a film in which his character has NO lines.

A Dracula film where Dracula says nothing? I know. Ridiculous. Especially when Dracula is being played by an actor as gracefully eloquent as Lee. The reason for this? From Lee’s autobiography, “The Lord of Misrule”: “I never said a word. I hissed, I spat, I snarled, but no word escaped my ruby lips. I was determined none should. I had read the script, I realized that it was impossible for anybody to write convincing lines for me. Rather than say the lines written down, I said nothing. Occasionally I remarked that Stoker had written some good lines for Dracula, and in subsequent pictures I made a point of borrowing a few from the book to interject when I thought the moment propitious. It was interesting in the aftermath, always, to find that the fans had recognized them.” Screenwriter Jimmy Sangster claims the script was written with no lines for Dracula, but I’m inclined to believe the Count himself on this one.

I saw him as a very decisive, charming, heroic, erotic figure — irresistible to women, unstoppable by men — a sinister but aristocratic nobleman. He also had a tragic quality to him — the curse of being immortal by being undead.

~ Christopher Lee on the character of Count Dracula

While the undead, blood-sucking Count may be my weakness when it comes to anything horror related, my favourite of Lee’s films is 1968′s “The Devil’s Bride” (released as “The Devil Rides Out” in the UK). In a rare role-reversal, we get to see Lee as the hero of the story rather than the villain. Nicholas, the Duc de Richleau (Christopher Lee), along with his friend Rex Van Ryn (Leon Greene), battle Mocata (Charles Gray) and his Satanic cult, the Angel of Death, and the Goat of Mendes, in an effort to save their young friend Simon from the clutches of evil. This film is both spooky and scary, delivering suspense, drama and a satisfying resolution. This is Hammer horror at its very best.

Christopher Lee has racked up an impressive 200+ films so far in his still ongoing career. Here are a few horror highlights. “The Devil’s Bride” topped my list already, so I’ve marked my other top three picks with an *:

*****

Christopher Lee made no effort to hide his displeasure with the way Hammer was somewhat degrading Count Dracula. Poorly written lines, a distinct lack of parallels to the original story; the cheesy re-imaginings were getting worse and worse. We are very fortunate to have Lee’s seven Hammer Dracula films, because he certainly didn’t want to do them.

But Lee would go on to play Dracula on a few other occasions. Most specifically in “El Conde Dracula” (1970), and in the documentary “In Search of Dracula” (1975).

“El Conde Dracula” was a Spanish, Italian and German production, and was a film Lee finally approved thanks to its true-to-Stoker script. “ … it is an old man in a black frockcoat, with white hair and a white moustache, getting progressively younger during the film as he gets stronger and stronger because of the blood. It is the only time … that Stoker’s character has been presented authentically.”

Interesting to note that Director Jesús Franco had wanted Vincent Price for the role of Van Helsing but due to contract commitments, Price was unable to take part in the film. Such a shame. Nothing can compare to the classic Cushing/Lee Van Helsing/Dracula pairing, but I would have loved to see a Price/Lee take on this most famous of rivalries.

In addition to narrating, Lee portrays both Count Dracula and real-life Dracula, Vlad Tepes (Vlad the Impaler) in “In Search of Dracula“, a documentary based on the book of the same name written by Professor Raymond T. McNally and Dracula-descendent Radu Florescu, published in 1972. The documentary talks about Stoker’s novel, and takes a look at vampires in popular culture, touching not only on Hammer’s Dracula franchise, but on “Nosferatu” (1922) and Universal’s “Dracula” (1931) also.

There is a full lecture on The Impaler himself, with Lee looking eerily like Vlad in moustache, fur hat and robes. The documentary devotes a lot of time to Transylvanian folklore, as well as exploring real life vampires – serial killers and those who claim to have vampiric tendencies. It’s not a spectacular product, but well worth watching for Lee’s dramatizations and gloriously deep and smooth narration.

Lee has also done a lot of non-horror acting and voice-over work throughout his career. In 1974, he was Bond villain Francisco Scaramanga in “The Man With the Golden Gun”. He worked with director Tim Burton on several films, including “Sleepy Hollow”, “The Corpse Bride”, “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”, and even had a small part in last year’s “Dark Shadows”. Lee played wizard Saruman in both “The Lord of the Rings” and “The Hobbit” films. And his sublime voice-portrayal of unhappy, unicorn captor King Haggard in the animated film “The Last Unicorn” will forever hold a special place in my heart.

But for me, Christopher Lee’s contribution to the realm of mystery, horror, terror and fear is his pièce de résistance. Whether skulking around his spooky castle as the Count, or lumbering about as Dr. Frankenstein’s monster or Kharis the mummy, he was truly in his element.

Tall, dark and gruesome, Christopher Lee is an imposing figure no matter the character he’s playing. But to me he’ll always be the dangerous, alluring, blood-thirsty Count with a penchant for buxom babes.

I’ve got a crooked neck from playing in all those films with him. He’s about ten feet tall. A superb golfer, speaks about 550 languages, excellent fencer . . . I tell you, the boy’s got talent! He’ll get on.

~ Peter Cushing on Christopher Lee

… † …

Vincent Price

1911 – 1993

It’s a pity you didn’t know when you started your game of murder that I was playing too.

~ Frederick Loren (Vincent Price), “House on Haunted Hill” (1959)

On April 10, 1953, Vincent Price’s first true horror movie, “House of Wax”, opened in New York City. Coming 15 years after his Hollywood debut, it would be the first of many fantastically frightening films that ultimately defined his career.

A magnificent actor, Price could play any role. The villain, the hero, clever, insane, pitiful, powerful — you name it, Price could act it. His delicious voice was commanding yet subdued. It was compelling, but laced with mystery and a little madness, it had a ring of danger to it. He always left you curious and wanting more.

I must quote directly from Denis Meikle, author of the book, “Vincent Price: The Art of Fear”, who characterized Price’s onscreen presence so eloquently, “His persona and mannered style of delivery demanded more from a script than the average Hollywood hack could provide. Whether he was characterizing the fictional creations of Jules Verne (Master of the World) or Guy de Maupassant (Diary of a Mad Man), or paraphrasing the collected plays of the Bard (Theatre of Blood), Price brought a dimension of excellence to the horror film that, for a time during the 1960s and 70s, lifted it free of the exploitation category and transformed it into a dark art.”

Why Price’s ability wasn’t recognized by mainstream Hollywood is beyond me. He was handsome, had a mesmerizing voice, and acting ability second to none. A prime example of Price’s leading man potential can be seen early in his career, in the 1946 film, “Dragonwyck”. Price portrays arrogant, somewhat disturbed aristocrat Nicholas Van Ryn. He delivers a subtle yet breathtaking performance.

Vincent Price should have been a top-billed Hollywood heartthrob-star alongside the likes of Rock Hudson, Clark Gable and Humphrey Bogart.

But alas, a horror star he was, and a horror star he shall remain. But my Lord, WHAT a horror star! And how many of his most beloved horror films would we not have to enjoy today if he had been busy sweeping women off their feet instead of drowning them in acid?

Speaking of which, my favourite of Price’s films also happens to be my favourite film of all time — “House on Haunted Hill” from 1959.

Price stars as the eccentric millionaire Frederick Loren, who at the prodding of his wife Annabel – the beautiful Carol Ohmart – hosts a little overnight… er, party, shall we say?

Frederick Loren: “Don’t let the ghosts and the ghouls disturb you, love.”

Annabelle Loren: “Darling, the only ghoul in the house is you.

~ House on Haunted Hill (1959)

We sit in unadulterated suspense as an elaborate cat-and-mouse game unfolds before our eyes. I won’t give the whole thing away in case any of my readers have never seen it – and you should see it — but let’s just say, this movie is everything a horror story should be. And please, don’t even bring up the 1999 butchering – sorry, I mean remake – of this masterpiece. What a horrible, horrible film.

Vincent Price was a very prolific actor who logged some 100+ films in his career. Here’s a short selection of my favourite Price films. I’ve marked my top three picks with an *:

*****

But Price’s reach in the land of horror certainly wasn’t limited to the big screen.

“The King of Pop”, Michael Jackson, was confident that his “Thriller” album (album release: November 1982, single release: November 1983) would become the biggest seller in pop music history – which it did – selling in excess of 50 million copies worldwide. And he wanted Vincent Price to do the voice-over rap in his iconic zombie-filled song and creepy, close to 14-minute video, “Thriller”.

*cue Price’s spine-tingling maniacal laughter*

~ Vincent Price, Thriller

Price was paid his usual fee for providing Thriller with his voice, but with no offer for profit-participation. This would prove to be a huge financial regret for him. Upon learning of the singer’s very large out-of-court settlement to the family of a boy whom he allegedly had sexual relations with, Price quipped to daughter Victoria, “I was f*cked by Michael Jackson – and I didn’t even get paid for it.” 

In 1957, Vincent Price was in an episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents: “The Perfect Crime”, season 3, episode 3, as detective Charles Courtney.

Price also made two appearances on another anthology series, Rod Serling’s darker delve into the bizarre, “Night Gallery” in 1971. First as the Professor in the second season segment “The Class of ’99” and then in the third and final season as John Carnby in “Return of the Sorcerer”.

Vincent Price also left his indelible mark on the world of children’s horror entertainment. In 1985, he starred as the delightfully debonair magician/warlock, Vincent Van Ghoul, in the 13-episode series, “The 13 Ghosts of Scooby Doo.”

More than a decade earlier though, Price took part in something truly wonderful. Created in 1971 by Canadian comic actor Billy Van (who was also the series’ main star), was the Canadian children’s show, “The Hilarious House of Frightenstein”. This was definitely a favourite of mine growing up. Price was the show’s spooky narrator, Vincent, who from atop his castle balcony, introduced each character, often in clever rhyming verse. (Watch for a future blog post dedicated to this series!)

The series was definitely made for children. It was funny but educational, with a cast of big, lovable monsters doing all kinds of weird and silly things. But what a delight it was to watch, even for adults!

Vincent Price was a genre all his own. His place as the King of Horror was secured a long time ago as far as I’m concerned. No matter how bad the script, Price could make it sing. Price was simply made for horror. His voice, his presence, his talent.

Thrills, chills, even a few silly spills, the serious and not so serious alike, Vincent Price, ladies and gentleman: The man who will live forever, both in our hearts … and in our nightmares.

~ Publicity still of Vincent Price and Debra Paget in “Tales of Terror” (1962)

A dear, charming man with a great sense of humor. Strictly a professional, who cares far more about his work than he allows the public to know. I am extremely fond of him and bask in his gentle kindness and warmth.

~ Peter Cushing on Vincent Price

… † …

Things change with time, but not always for the better. Horror is one of those things. Nothing compares to the type of glam-gore-horror that studios like Hammer and Amicus were producing in the late 50s through the 70s. Men like Cushing, Lee and Price? Even Dr. Frankenstein himself couldn’t make them like that anymore.

Everyone likes to be scared. At least just a little bit. There’s nothing quite like experiencing that slight chill in the air, that feeling that you’re not alone, that someone or something is watching you, right before the hairs on the back of your neck stand up. You know there’s nothing there. Just the darkness. But what if there’s something in the darkness? Something you can’t see? Something frightening, something scary, something evil? NO. There’s nothing there. Shake it off. Pull the blanket around yourself tighter. And try not to look behind you. No, I said don’t look!

What is Terror…? Is it to awaken and hear the passing of time? Or is it the failing beat of your own heart? — Or the footsteps of someone who, just a moment before, was in your room…? But let us not dwell on Terror… The knowledge of Terror is vouchsafed only to the precious few…

~ Prince Prospero (Vincent Price), “The Masque of the Red Death” (1963)

Until next time, unpleasant dreams . . .

^..^

… † …

There are many memorable pairings in the world of horror: Peter Cushing & Christopher Lee, Van Helsing & Dracula, Doctor Frankenstein & his Monster, Scooby Doo & Shaggy. And here is another interesting duo for your consideration — Vincent Price & Edgar Allan Poe.

If you’re a fan of Poe and a fan of Price, and you happen to be a film producer, the only logical thing to do is adapt Poe to the big screen and cast Vincent Price as your lead. Which is exactly what film producer Roger Corman did.

Between 1960 and 1964, Corman produced eight films adapted from Edgar Allan Poe’s writings. Only one of the films, “The Premature Burial” (1962), didn’t star Vincent Price.

Corman covered the most popular and recognizable of Poe’s tales. For his “Poe Cycle”, he collaborated with writers Richard Matheson (“The Fall of the House of Usher”, “The Pit and the Pendulum”, “The Raven“, “Tales of Terror”), and Charles Beaumont (“Masque of the Red Death”, “The Haunted Palace”). At the time, both men were hard at work writing for one of my all-time favourite shows, the classic, ever-popular anthology series, The Twilight Zone.

With Halloween little more than a week away, here is a pictorial look at the unique pairing of Poe & Price for you to savour. And if you’ve never watched these films or it’s been a while, then why not have yourself a little Halloween marathon? Enjoy, darlings.

The condition of man: bound on an island from which he can never hope to escape; surrounded by the waiting pit of Hell; subject to the inexorable pendulum of fate – which must destroy him, finally.

~ Nicholas/Sebastian Medina, “Pit and the Pendulum”

… † …

The Fall of the House of Usher

1960

Vincent Price as Roderick Usher

While I gazed, this fissure rapidly widened — there came a fierce breath of the whirlwind — the entire orb of the satellite burst at once upon my sight — my brain reeled as I saw the mighty walls rushing asunder — there was a long tumultuous shouting sound like the voice of a thousand waters — and the deep and dank tarn at my feet closed sullenly and silently over the fragments of the “House of Usher”.

~ Edgar Allan Poe, “The Fall of the House of Usher”

… † …

Pit and the Pendulum

1961

Vincent Price as Nicholas/Sebastian Medina

A suffocating odour pervaded the prison! A deeper glow settled each moment in the eyes that glared at my agonies! A richer tint of crimson diffused itself over the pictured horrors of blood. I panted! I gasped for breath! There could be no doubt of the design of my tormentors — oh! most unrelenting! oh! most demoniac of men!

~ Edgar Allan Poe, “The Pit and the Pendulum”

… † …

Tales of Terror

1962

Vincent Price as Locke, Fortunato, Luchresi, M. Valdemar

This anthology film is based on three of Poe’s short stories: “Morella”, “The Black Cat” (loosely combined with “The Cask of Amontillado”), and ”The Facts in the Case of M. Valdemar.”

“It is a day of days,” she said, as I approached; “a day of all days either to live or die. It is a fair day for the sons of earth and life — ah, more fair for the daughters of heaven and death! I am dying, yet shall I live. The days have never been when thou couldst love me — but her whom in life thou didst abhor, in death thou shalt adore.”

~ Edgar Allan Poe, “Morella”

The corpse, already greatly decayed and clotted with gore, stood erect before the eyes of the spectators. Upon its head, with red extended mouth and solitary eye of fire, sat the hideous beast whose craft had seduced me into murder, and whose informing voice had consigned me to the hangman. I had walled the monster up within the tomb!

~ Edgar Allan Poe, “The Black Cat”

As I rapidly made the mesmeric passes, amid ejaculations of “dead! dead!” absolutely bursting from the tongue and not from the lips of the sufferer, his whole frame at once  – within the space of a single minute, or even less, shrunk — crumbled — absolutely rotted away beneath my hands. Upon the bed, before that whole company, there lay a nearly liquid mass of loathsome — of detestable putridity.

~ Edgar Allan Poe, “The Facts in the Case of M. Valdemar”

… † …

The Raven

1962 –– Dr. Erasmus Craven

Then this ebony bird beguiling my sad fancy into smiling, by the grave and stern decorum of the countenance it wore, “Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,” I said, “art sure no craven. Ghastly grim and ancient Raven wandering from the Nightly shore,— Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night’s Plutonian shore!” Quoth the Raven, “Nevermore.”

~ Edgar Allan Poe, “The Raven”

… † …

The Haunted Palace

1963 -– Charles Dexter Ward/Joseph Curwen

But evil things, in robes of sorrow, assailed the monarch’s high estate; (Ah, let us mourn!—for never morrow shall dawn upon him, desolate!) and round about his home the glory that blushed and bloomed is but a dim-remembered story of the old time entombed.

~Edgar Allan Poe, “The Haunted Palace”

… † …

The Masque of the Red Death

1964 –– Prince Prospero

And now was acknowledged the presence of the Red Death. He had come like a thief in the night. And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. And the life of the ebony clock went out with that of the last of the gay. And the flames of the tripods expired. And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all.

~ Edgar Allan Poe, “The Masque of the Red Death”

… † …

The Tomb of Ligeia

1964 -– Verden Fell

Shrinking from my touch, she let fall from her head, unloosened, the ghastly cerements which had confined it, and there streamed forth, into the rushing atmosphere of the chamber, huge masses of long and dishevelled hair; it was blacker than the raven wings of the midnight! And now slowly opened the eyes of the figure which stood before me. “Here then, at least,” I shrieked aloud, “can I never — can I never be mistaken — these are the full, and the black, and the wild eyes — of my lost love — of the lady — of the LADY LIGEIA.

~ Edgar Allan Poe, “Ligeia”

Until next time, unpleasant dreams . . .

^..^

20 years ago today, the world said goodbye to one of its most gifted actors. On October 25th, 1993, we mourned the loss of Vincent Price.

Charismatic, magnificent, unmistakeable, and irreplaceable was Price. Especially influential in the realm of horror, he brought to life a wide range of beloved characters. Cunning Frederick Loren in “House on Haunted Hill” (1959); witch hunter Matthew Hopkins in “Witchfinder General” (1968); vengeful Anton Phibes in “The Abominable Dr. Phibes” (1971); horror movie actor (how fitting!) Paul Toombes, aka Dr. Death, in “Madhouse” (1974). But for any script, any role, any film, Vincent Price was your man.

As All Hallows’ Eve draws nigh, let us remember the man who changed the face of our favourite genre forever.

Hail, but not farewell.

Vincent Price

May 27th, 1911 – October 25th, 1993

This is the beating of a human heart… Sit very still and listen. Is your heart beating in this same rhythm? You are experiencing the heartbeat of a dying man, and it is with death and dying that we concern ourselves. What happens at the point of death? — What happens afterwards?

~ Opening Narration (Vincent Price), “Tales of Terror” (1961)

You’re in a foreign land. A land filled with superstition. Ahead is a gloomy Gothic castle shadowed upon a hill top. The sun is setting, the darkness is closing in, the fog is obscuring your view. You approach with hesitation, apprehension. You enter. You’re afraid, but you don’t quite know why.

I’ll tell you why. Because inside this ancient mausoleum dwells a creature, neither man nor beast. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that he is both man and beast. The personification of evil. An enigmatic being enshrouded in desire, passion and lust. And danger. And fear. And death.

There he is! At the top of the stairs! Look! You take a step back as he descends the grand staircase, his black cape billowing out behind him. His feet don’t even seem to be touching the steps. He’s gliding down toward you.

He’s a simply magnificent specimen of a … man, or whatever he is. Strong jaw, hair smoothed back, tall and handsome and … captivating. Those eyes. He speaks to you, the words resonating smoothly in the air all around you, deep and clear and … intoxicating.

“I am Dracula.”

And just like THAT, you’re under his spell. Before you know it, he’ll be swaddling you in that glorious cape and his razor sharp teeth will be plunged into your neck! There will be blood and carnage, screams and moans, more blood, boobs, crucifixes and garlic galore! (Did I mention more blood?) Because this isn’t your typical visit to Dracula’s castle. Oh, no, my darlings.

Here. Better gear up first. Crucifix, stake, vial of Holy Water, and — *hands you a cell phone* — Van Helsing is on speed dial. Now grab a candelabra and we’ll head down to the vault, into the crypt of the monstrous, bloody beast known as Hammer Films, where we’ll explore the mark they left on the immortal Count Dracula.

The House of Hammer was filled with ghoulish delights. From the late 1950s till the mid-to-late 70s, the British production company Hammer Films were truly the kings of gory horror.

One of their greatest achievements though, was their take on the undead gent in a cape – Dracula.

Hammer produced nine Dracula films in total over a 16-year period. Of these nine films, 1960′s “Brides of Dracula” and 1974′s “Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires” are the only Dracula films that did not feature Christopher Lee as the Count. But they did both star Peter Cushing as Van Helsing.

As far as I’m concerned, Lee is THE Count Dracula. And no matter how far-gone the scripts written for him became, he still mesmerized audiences and made a legend of Hammer’s Dracula, who was well known as the Count with a penchant for bare, busty babes. Ah, gotta love the British in the 60s. Practically every film made during that time just wasn’t complete without a gore-ific parade of Technicolour tarts.

Of the seven Lee/Dracula films, Peter Cushing’s intrepid Van Helsing was present in only three: “Horror of Dracula” (1958), “Dracula A.D. 1972 (1972) and “The Satanic Rites of Dracula” (1973)

While some films are definitely better than others, all are worth watching if you’re a fan of Hammer, Dracula, or Lee himself. The one thing that can be said of these b-grade films is that they never failed to entertain. There was just something about them that made it impossible not to watch and enjoy.

Delve into the Darkness of Dracula

… † …

Horror of Dracula

1958

The chill of the tomb won’t leave your blood for hours… after you come face-to-face with DRACULA!

The first film in Hammer’s Dracula canon (and my favourite) is “Horror of Dracula”. Riding high on the success of the previous year’s “The Curse of Frankenstein” (the film credited with resurrecting the horror genre), Hammer set out to reinvent the world’s other most beloved monster. Thanks to the wonderful script writing of Jimmy Sangster and the undeniable chemistry between Cushing and Lee, “Horror of Dracula” would prove to be another hit, even surpassing the box office take of “Curse of Frankenstein”.

Christopher Lee was paid £750 for the role that brought him his name and cemented his face and voice as that of the noble leech of Transylvania, as Lee referred to the character in his autobiography, “Lord of Misrule”.

The plot contains a few elements of Stoker’s original novel. Jonathan Harker (John Van Eyssen) has come to stay at Castle Dracula, but in this version, he’s there with the knowledge of what Dracula is, and he has his orders from Van Helsing: kill the Count.

The characters of Mina (Melissa Stribling) and Lucy (Carol Marsh) are also present in this film, with the lustful Count pursuing (of course!) them both.

But my favourite moment is watching the daring Van Helsing run the full length of the refectory table, leaping into the air, and ripping down the drapes, exposing Dracula to the sunlight. Interesting to note that it was Peter Cushing’s idea to do this. It was also his idea to use the two crossed candlesticks to form a makeshift crucifix to keep Dracula from escaping. Cushing felt the film needed “some sort of Douglas Fairbanks scene.” And what a scene it turned out to be!

The highlight of the film, though has got to be the incredible work of special effects man Sydney Pearson and makeup artist Phil Leakey. At the film’s climax, we see Dracula disintegrate right before our eyes. According to Lee, there were many stages to producing this effect. “The first thing to go was my foot, and I had to do a Lon Chaney, almost dislocating my foot and tucking it under me. Then a hand, likewise. Then the other coming up over the face, and the face crumbling… Clever fellows! It was almost an honour to be so ably pulverized.”

Film Bulletin said the film was a “Technicoloured nightmare, directed by Terence Fisher with immense flair for the blood-curdling shot.” But “Horror of Dracula” has become a true cult classic. It’s beloved by fans all around the world and is a must-see at Halloween. I rewatched it just last week. It catapulted Cushing and Lee to near god-like status in the world of horror. Aside from being my favourite Dracula movie, it’s also definitely one of my top five Hammer films. So if you’ve never seen it or it’s been a while, then pop it in tonight, grab some popcorn and your best friend, and enjoy. And definitely watch with the lights off.

Don’t Dare See It … Alone!

… † …

Dracula, Prince of Darkness

1966

DEAD for Ten Years DRACULA, Prince of Darkness, LIVES AGAIN!

Seven years later, Count Dracula again walks among the living. Hammer’s second film opens with a wonderful montage of climactic scenes from “Horror of Dracula”, giving a nice overview of what has already transpired along with a narration to set the stage for the Count’s new reign of terror. The script is once again written by Jimmy Sangster, but under the pen name of John Sansom — his feeble attempt to distance himself from the stereotype of being solely a writer of horror.

The basic premise of “Dracula: Prince of Darkness” is very simple: two travelling couples – Alan and Helen (Charles Tingwell and Barbara Shelley) and Charles and Diana (Francis Matthews and Suzan Farmer) get lost and wind up spending a night of fright at Dracula’s castle. We see a tiny nod to Stoker’s novel with the introduction of a Renfield-like character, Ludwig (Thorley Walters), but that’s about as far as the original novel’s influence goes.

One of the most memorable scenes comes right at the start: the Count’s resurrection. The Count’s manservant Klove (Philip Latham), lures Alan into the cellar. He stabs him, then hoists his body above a large stone sarcophagus. After sprinkling the Count’s ashes in the box, he slits Alan’s throat. The blood drips into the ashes and in a beautifully crafted sequence of shots, we see Dracula come to life.

It was Les Bowie who was responsible for the excellent effects in this second Dracula film. He built the Count’s regeneration literally from the ground up. From ashes, to skeleton, to a yucky, fleshy mass, to finally a very effective shot from outside the coffin of the Count’s bare arm emerging. Unlike most Dracula manifestation scenes of the past, Hammer chose to shake it up by not having Dracula re-manifest wearing his clothing. He lies naked in the sarcophagus, his clothes laid out on the side for him by the ever faithful Klove. It’s good to have a servant who pays attention to the little things like that. Good help is so hard to find these days…

This notoriously graphic scene did hit a bit of a snafu during production. Hammer was by this time well known for their over the top blood, gore and violence. And like all other British production companies, Hammer had to submit the script to the dreaded censors, the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC). Originally, the scene called for a complete decapitation of poor, curious Alan, with Klove tossing his severed head to one side. Not surprisingly, the BBFC said, “no way!” and the scene was changed to the only slightly less graphic throat-slitting we see in the film today.

There’s something unique about this second film, something we don’t see in the other six of the series. Christopher Lee, Dracula himself, has no lines. He speaks not one word of dialogue throughout the entire film. As I explained in a previous blog post, Lee refused to say the dreadful, un-Stoker-inspired, lines written for him, choosing instead to play the role silently. But Lee’s claim has been debated. Scriptwriter Sangster said that he deliberately wrote the script with no lines for the Count, and Howard Maxford’s book, “Hammer, House of Horror”, seems to corroborate this. After Dracula’s glorious grand entrance, Maxford writes,“How could Dracula possibly live up to expectations? He couldn’t now pop into the drawing room and greet his guests in the clipped manner he’d used in the original film – this would surely have provoked laughter. Consequently, it was decided that Dracula would remain mute throughout the film, influencing events by the sheer power of his presence, leaving any verbal instructions he might have to his faithful manservant Klove.”

That’s a nice explanation, but why would Lee lie? What is the truth on this matter? Did Lee refuse to read the lines or were they never written to begin with? Unfortunately we may never know for sure.

A new Dracula film meant a new way for the Count to die. And “Dracula: Prince of Darkness” once again went outside the box for Drac’s demise. In this one, Dracula is trapped on his frozen moat. Diana takes a shot at the Count, but misses, cracking the ice by his feet. Father Sandor (Andrew Keir – this film’s Van Helsing stand-in) takes the gun and fires repeatedly at the ice until it breaks and Dracula slides down into his icy grave.

Christopher Lee commented on this unique death and on the near disaster that could have cost a man his life while filming. From “The Lord of Misrule”: “The death prescribed for me in this one was less imaginative than the first but in [any] event it was still a memorable piece of shooting. It was based on the superstition that vampires expire if they try to cross running water. Here my own fated ill luck with water affected the outcome. I had to slide down a piece of wood on a hinge, painted white to look like ice, and disappear through the crack into a watery grave. But there was a malfunction. I got stuck, and my stunt double Eddie Powell was trapped under the ice when the hinge swung back, and nearly drowned.”

I still rate this film highly as far as Hammer’s Dracula canon goes. It’s a fairly classic vampire tale with the beginnings of Hammer’s out-of-the-box direction for the Count. And as far as kooky ideas go, they were just getting started.

FIGHT BACK! DEFEND YOURSELF!

… † …

Dracula Has Risen From the Grave

1968

Inflamed with his Vampire thirst for blood and evil and beautiful girls.

It appears that the icy darkness was no match for the cunning Count. Two years later he’s once again resurrected in the third instalment of Hammer’s Lee/Dracula film, the aptly named, “Dracula Has Risen From the Grave.”

We get a little prequel with this film as well. The scene opens with eager young Johann (Norman Bacon) arriving at the village church. He tidies up a little, but when he pulls on the rope to ring the church bell, it makes no sound. Something drips onto his hand. He looks up to find that blood is dripping down the rope. He cautiously ascends the spiral staircase. The priest (Ewan Hooper) arrives at the church and a series of screams ring out. The priest runs inside just as Johann is running out. In the bell tower, the priest sees that the blood is dripping out of the bell. As he approaches, a woman’s bloody shoe falls out. Startled, the priest bumps the bell, revealing the dead body of a young woman, her neck bruised and bloody, and sporting a couple of bite marks. “Dear God, when shall we be free? When shall we be free of his evil?” The priest murmurs.

Jump ahead one year. We meet the film’s main protagonist, Ernst Mueller (Rupert Davies), Monsignor of the Holy Catholic Church in the province of Keinenberg. A visit to the village which lies beneath the shadow of Castle Dracula reveals that the people are still terrified of the vampire king even though he’s been dead for twelve months. Mueller decides that in order to prove to the villagers that the evil is indeed gone, he must exorcise the castle.

Now, of course the first question we ask is: How is Dracula to be resurrected THIS time? Thanks to a series of rather unfortunate (and fortuitous for the Count!) events.

Tagging along is the now-alcoholic village priest (Ewan Hooper), but he’s too afraid to go all the way up the mountain with the Monsignor, who is toting a giant-size cross strapped to his back. Mueller leaves the priest and continues on to the castle. The exorcism brings on a magnificent show of thunder and lightning, startling the priest. Losing his footing, he tumbles down the mountainside, and lands – you guessed it – next to the frozen river, which conveniently cracks right above the body of the dreaded Dracula. Just as the Monsignor bars the doors of Castle Dracula with his cross, the blood of the priest drips through the crack in the ice, right into the Count’s mouth, reviving the undead monster once again.

Back at the village, “His spirit will never leave there to trouble you again,” the Monsignor tells the people. Ugh. Famous last words, pal.

While not a favourite among critics – despite breaking box office records in its first two days in London — I feel this is another strong film by Hammer. The story is sound, there’s a little bit of action, and while maybe not as much as I’d like, there’s a good dose of Lee’s Count. Screenwriter Anthony Hinds (writing under the pseudonym John Elder) was responsible for “Dracula Has Risen From the Grave”. Hinds was the creative head of Hammer, and is credited for putting the production company on the map. He died earlier this month at the age of 91.

There is of course a girl, Maria (Veronica Carlson), niece of the Monsignor, who is pursued by Dracula, not only because she’s beautiful, but for revenge against the Monsignor for barring the Count from his own castle. Much of the film is dedicated to observing Maria’s personal life, including her relationship with Paul (Barry Andrews), who is charged by the Monsignor on his deathbed to destroy Dracula.

An interesting death for the Count this time, and perhaps my favourite. Dracula takes a bitten and bewitched Maria up to his castle and demands she remove the Monsignor’s cross from the castle doors. “Get that thing out of my sight!” shrieks Dracula as he thrusts her towards the door. Maria throws the cross down the mountainside, burning her hands in the process. We see the cross land in an earthy patch, its base sticking in the ground, so that it stands erect. Paul comes to the rescue and wrestles with Dracula, causing them both to tumble down the mountain. Paul’s descent is stopped by a twiggy bush. The Count, however, gets impaled on the Monsignor’s cross.

As Dracula writhes around with the cross sticking out of his chest, the priest begins reciting a prayer in Latin. As he says, “Amen,” the Count expires, leaving only the bloody cross and his cape behind

On set during the filming of the final scene of “Dracula Has Risen From the Grave”, Hammer Films was awarded The Queen’s Award to Industry. This was the first time the award had ever gone to a film production company. The award was given in recognition of bringing a substantial and consistent amount of export money into Britain over a three year period. I’ve seen conflicting figures for just how much revenue Hammer was earning so I won’t presume to report an exact figure here. Suffice it to say it was a lot. Which just goes to show you that people like what they like, no matter what the snooty critics say.

You just can’t keep a good man down.

… † …

Taste the Blood of Dracula

1970

They taste his blood and the horror begins!

The critics had to wait only two more years before taking aim at the Count’s heart again.

Another script by Anthony Hinds, “Taste the Blood of Dracula” was supposed to co-star Vincent Price as one of three high society gentleman –Samuel Paxton (Peter Sallis), Jonathon Secker (John Carson), and William Hargood (Geoffrey Keen) — seeking less than respectable, sordid adventure in Victorian England. Unfortunately, Price was cut from the cast when the already meagre budget took an even bigger hit.

One of the best things about these Hammer Dracula films is the way the writers transition from film to film. This one is very clever. Instead of just a flashback recap or wrap-up opening narration, this time we get to see one of the new film’s characters taking part in the last film’s finale. Turns out someone other than the priest, Maria and Paul witnessed the Count’s impalement at the climax of “Dracula Has Risen From the Grave”.

Travelling businessman Weller (Roy Kinnear) witnesses the horrific scene. We watch again as Dracula stumbles around with a cross sticking out of him and take in Weller’s very expressive reactions. Among Dracula’s red ashes, Weller finds the Count’s “Dracula” clasp and his ring.

And so the story begins in the present. While being “entertained” in a secret brothel, Paxton, Secker, and Hargood are introduced to Lord Courtley (Ralph Bates), who is said to be possessed by the devil. Their craving for forbidden excitement peeked, the men invite Courtley to supper and he propositions them to take part in a ceremony to sell their souls to the devil. What could be more exciting than that? Oh, I don’t know. Maybe resurrecting the king of all vampires. Some have said that Bates (best known for his role in another Hammer film, the following year’s “Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde”) wasn’t up to the task of playing Lord Courtley, but I find his performance to be colourful and rather enjoyable to watch. He wears the most delightfully conceited, smug expression throughout.

The men pay a visit to Weller’s store, where for 1000 guineas, Courtley convinces them to purchase the relics Weller took from Dracula’s grave – his cloak, clasp, signet ring, and a vial of the vampire’s powdered blood. “A concentration of evil, my dear sirs,” Weller tells the men when they enquire about the items.

With the goods in tow, the men meet the mysterious Lord Courtley at a church in the dead of night. Standing at the black altar, Courtley dons Dracula’s cape and ring and hands each man a goblet. “Hark, ye, O, ye timeless ones,” Courtley prays, “ye elementals of the earth, and of the air, and of fire, and of water. In the most august dread of the supreme Prince of Darkness, and of his archangels and angels of darkness, and his legions, draw near and do my bidding, I command! I command! I command!!” He pours some of the Count’s ashes into a large chalice on the altar, and into each of the goblets the men are holding. Slicing open his hand, he drips a drop of his own blood into each glass, causing the ashes to froth up and the glass fills with a red, bloody liquid.

When the men refuse to ingest the foul cocktail, Courtley himself drinks and collapses, crying out for help. They help him alright. By beating him to death and leaving.

But the ceremony, aided by Courtley’s death, has successfully resurrected the Count and the remainder of the film is Dracula’s quest to exact revenge. “They have destroyed my servant. They will be destroyed.”

Young love is in the air again, and of course, Paul (Anthony Higgins) and Alice (Linda Hayden) happen to be the children of Paxton and Hargood, making them the perfect pawns in Dracula’s deadly game of vengeance. In fact, all three men’s children are involved, with Paxton’s daughter Lucy (Isla Blair) being engaged to Secker’s son Jeremy (Martin Jarvis).

The interesting thing about this particular film is that in a rare moral twist, Dracula isn’t such a cut and dry villain. Paxton, Secker and Hargood are not nice men. They put on airs that they’re respectable and moral, but spend their evenings whoring around and trying to conjure up the devil. Hargood forbids Alice from being with Paul, whom she loves. And while attempting to whip her for disobeying his order not to attend a party with Paul, he meets his grisly yet somewhat justified end when, under the Count’s spell, she kills him with a shovel.

Eventually both Alice and Lucy fall victim to Dracula’s power and under his direction, they stake Paxton, Lucy’s father, in the church where the Count has been staying. Secker is soon to follow when he is killed by son Jeremy, now a vampire as well, thanks to a bite from fiancée Lucy.

But Secker has left a note for young Paul. “You have the courage to do what has to be done and above all, your love for Alice will act as your strength and your protection. And you must believe me. You must arm yourself with knowledge, Paul. And so you will see that, while there is little hope for your dear sister, Alice may have escaped. Find her, Paul, and find her before nightfall. Only then will you know the truth. We know that she is under his influence, but she may not yet be his sister in blood. Not yet.”

On his way to the church, Paul finds the body of his dead sister, killed by Dracula the night before. More determined than ever, he enters the church during the light of day and replaces the unholy black altar with white runner, white candles and a cross. When darkness falls, both the Count and Alice emerge. Paul keeps Dracula away with the cross, which starts glowing brightly in his hands. “You’re free to choose!” He tells Alice. “You’re not one of them yet!” But Alice wrestles the cross away from Paul and he gets thrown violently aside.

Alice looks desperately to Dracula for approval, but he declares that he has no further use for her. He tries to leave the church, but discovers that Paul has barred the door with a large cross. Alice throws her cross at the panicked Count’s feet, trapping him momentarily between the two crosses. Dracula makes his way up to a balcony and begins hurling debris down at the couple. He climbs higher, to the ledge of the main stained glass window where he inadvertently gets too close to the glowing cross depicted there. For relief, the Count breaks the glass and suddenly finds himself overwhelmed with phantom Latin prayers and church music. In a beautifully directed shot, the camera pans around the now divinely lit church, seemingly restored to its former Christian glory, filled to the brim with holy objects: a statue of Mary, crosses and icons all around. Completely overwhelmed and disoriented, Dracula falls from the ledge onto the altar below and dies. His body disintegrates into a pile of ash.

Hungarian Peter Sasdy’s directing is brilliant in this film. Visually, “Taste the Blood of Dracula” is a masterpiece. As always, Hammer’s set design is gorgeous, as was “St. Andrew’s Church in Totteridge, London where some of the movie was filmed.

Hammer’s Morals 101: Be cautious when looking for excitement. If you play with hell fire, expect to get burned.

Drink A Pint of Blood a Day

… † …

Scars of Dracula

1970

Hammer’s Masterpiece of the Macabre!

Released just a few months after the previous film, “Scars of Dracula” is once again set at Dracula’s castle. Another script by Anthony Hines/John Elder, the fifth film in the Hammer Dracula canon created a mixed bag of reviews. I for one enjoyed it. It’s one of my favourites of the series. Christopher Lee on the other hand, doesn’t agree.

“Scars of Dracula was truly feeble. It was a story with Dracula popped in almost as an afterthought. Even the Hammer make-up for once was tepid. It’s one thing to look like death warmed up, quite another to look unhealthy. I was a pantomime figure. Everything was over the top, especially the giant bat whose electrically motored wings flapped with slow deliberation as if it were doing morning exercises. The idea that Dracula best liked his blood served in a nubile container was gaining ground with the front office and I struggled in vain against the direction that the fangs should be seen to strike home, as against the more decorous (and more chilling) methods of shielding the sight with the Count’s cloak. In the context of many modern extravagances this fussing may seem like the Victorian preference for having table legs covered.”

That’s really harsh. The following sequel deserves some scorn alright, but certainly not this one. For example, “Scars of Dracula” boasts my favourite opening of all seven films: the Count’s resurrection. The creepy Dark Shadows-esque music as we zoom in on the Gothic castle only adds to the scene’s ambiance. Inside we find Dracula’s striking red-lined cape and a pile of his ashes. The squeaking giant bat that Lee mentioned in the above quote appears through the window, and in a magnificent close up, blood pours from the bat’s mouth onto the ashes. The thunder rumbles and we watch in suspense as Dracula’s body gradually begins to take shape, from ash, to skeleton, to fully clothed Lee.

While not a whole lot different than any of the preceding films, this is perhaps the bloodiest.

The story begins simply enough. After Dracula’s resurrection, the scene shifts to show a villager carrying the dead body of a young girl into the local tavern. Clearly she is the victim of a vampire attack, sporting two nasty looking bite marks on her neck. Fed up with the bloodsucker, the villagers decide it’s time to fight back. Leaving the women and children in the church, a mob of village men storm the castle and set it ablaze.

Proud of what they have accomplished, they head back to the church to delivery the good news to their loved ones – they’re finally safe. But the villagers return to a gruesome scene. Once the bats have cleared out, the men step inside to find that everyone has been massacred. Blood-streaked walls, mangled, torn up bodies strewn about the room. Dracula’s revenge for the damage done to his castle.

The side story is of Sarah (Jenny Hanley), Simon (Dennis Waterman), and his skirt-chasing, womanizer brother Paul (Christopher Matthews). Paul finds himself at Castle Dracula one night and meets Tanya (Anouska Hempel), a servant of Dracula’s. They spend the night in bed together and when Tanya awakes, she tries to bite Paul. Throwing back the bed curtains, the Count viciously stabs Tanya in one of the most violent scenes we’ve seen from Hammer so far in the series. Made even more gruesome by Dracula then drinking from the gaping wound, a scene which is unfortunately absent in some showings of the film.

Concerned about his brother’s disappearance, Simon and Sarah set off in search of Paul. Their inquiries lead them to the castle where Dracula is immediately taken with the lovely girl, putting her in a separate bedroom away from Simon. He attempts to bite her, but she’s wearing a cross. Dracula summons his servant Klove (played this time by Patrick Troughton) to remove it, but Klove recognizes Sarah from a miniature photograph he found in Paul’s belongings. In love with her, the servant refuses to help.

When Simon discovers the photo in Klove’s bedroom, Klove confirms that Paul was there but that he escaped, adding that Sarah is in danger as long as she stays at the castle. Simon and Sarah flee and go to the village for help, but the villagers want no part in the rescue mission, save for the priest (Michael Gwynn). Leaving Sarah in the church, the two set out for the castle. Upon Simon’s insistence however, the priest returns to watch over Sarah.

When Dracula finds out that Klove allowed the couple to escape, the Count punishes him by sticking a sword into the fire and burning the man’s back which bears many scars from previous torture.

Back at the castle, Simon descends into the Count’s crypt and becomes trapped there by Klove. At the same time, one of the deadly bats pays a visit to the church. Sarah escapes, running to castle, but the bat attacks and kills the priest in a very graphic, bloody scene. I don’t care what anyone says, I think the prop bat and special effects throughout this entire film were excellent.

Simon discovers Paul’s body impaled on a meat hook in Dracula’s lair before coming face to face with the Count, and watches as Dracula crawls up the walls of the castle (a nice nod to Stoker’s novel).

The climax of the film, and yes, yet another imaginative death for Dracula, takes place on the castle rampart. In another reasonably well shot scene, a bat rips Sarah’s cross from her neck, leaving her convincingly scratched and bloodied as Dracula closes in. Simon, managing to escape the crypt, impales the Count with a metal rod, but he removes it easily. In a nice twist though,the Count holds up the rod to throw it at Simon, and a bolt of lightning strikes it, electrocuting him. Dracula bursts into flames and burns up before our very eyes, tumbling over the castle wall to his death.

Despite what the critics and Lee say, I would place “Scars of Dracula” as my number 2 Hammer Dracula film, trailing “Horror of Dracula” at number one. It’s a little meaner and more graphic than the others, but Lee has a lot of screen time and actual dialogue. The castle set is glorious, with plenty of pops of Hammer Blood Red. Visually stunning, and suitably scary. And typical Hammer, always a lot of fun.

What we shall be facing in a few hours’ time is not a man. He is evil. He is the embodiment of all that is evil. He is the very Devil himself.

… † …

Dracula A.D. 1972

1972

The count is back, with an eye for London’s hot pants … and a taste for everything.

Hippies, hippies and more hippies. Ugh. Sorry, but I don’t like hippies. Let me state for the record now that “Dracula A.D. 1972” is my least favourite Hammer Dracula film. Taking place, as the film suggests, in modern day 1972, this film is chock full of bad hair, bad clothes, borderline bad music (okay, maybe I fancy the music a bit!) and the free-and-loose lifestyle of teenagers who have been smoking WAY too much dope.

The film’s only real saving grace is the return (finally!) of Peter Cushing, who once again plays  Professor Van Helsing. I’m telling you, the man was simply brilliant. Only Cushing could enthrall an audience by simply sitting in a chair, smoking a cigarette, and talking. “There is evil in this world. There’s dark, awful things. Occasionally, we get a glimpse of them, but there are dark corners, horrors almost impossible to imagine even in our worst nightmares. There is a Satan.”

The best part of the entire movie is the first five minutes. It’s a flashback sequence, but not of scenes from the previous film. The year is 1872, and we see Dracula and Lawrence Van Helsing’s (Peter Cushing) exciting fight to the death atop a runaway stagecoach. It crashes, leaving poor Dracula impaled by one of the smashed wagon wheels.

The scene is superb. Lee stumbling around with the wheel sticking out of him, still having the will to lunge when he sees that Van Helsing is alive. But Van Helsing manages to knock him to the ground and breaks off one of the wheel spokes, the one stuck in Dracula’s heart. Van Helsing watches the Count’s corpse turn into dust and then collapses and dies himself. But there is also another character in the scene. A man riding on horseback who stops to take in what has happened. He collects Dracula’s ring and a vial of his ashes. We find out later in the film that this was a member of the Alucard (Dracula spelled backwards) family. During Van Helsing’s funeral, he buries Dracula’s ashes just outside the church cemetery and drives the wagon wheel stake into the ground after them.

“Dracula A.D.”’s plot is similar to that of “Taste the Blood of Dracula”. A group of people (teenagers in this case) looking for excitement, get tangled up in an evil summoning ritual and become victims of Dracula. Dracula’s loyal servant, the theatrical Johnny Alucard (Christopher Neame), a descendent of the man we saw at the beginning of the film, is charged with bringing to the Count Jessica Van Helsing (Stephanie Beecham), granddaughter of the current Professor Van Helsing, great granddaughter of the Van Helsing that killed him. “I have returned to destroy the house of Van Helsing forever, the old through the young,” Dracula tells Johnny.

The progression of the film was rather slow, despite the incessant quick-paced, upbeat musical score that plays, regardless of scene. There were a few memorable moments though.

The film’s resurrection scene was rather nice, complete with a smoking, heaving grave. When Johnny removes the wagon wheel stake, Dracula materializes in an impressive cloud of smoke.

And during a confrontation at Johnny’s apartment, Van Helsing cleverly uses a swivelling hand mirror to reflect sunlight from a nearby window at the now-a-vampire Johnny, who maintains his delightfully devilish smile throughout the film.

There is also a small nod to Bram Stoker’s original “Dracula”. At one point, Dracula taunts Van Helsing in the church saying, “You would play your brains against mine, against me who has commanded nations?” This is a nice play on a portion of Dracula’s dialogue from Stoker’s novel: “Whilst they played wits against me, against me who commanded nations, and intrigued for them, and fought for them, hundreds of years before they were born, I was countermining them.” In my post “The Art of Fear“, I quoted Lee: “Occasionally I remarked that Stoker had written some good lines for Dracula, and in subsequent pictures I made a point of borrowing a few from the book to interject when I thought the moment propitious.” Makes me wonder if this line was such an occurrence.

The film started with a great fight to the death scene and I’m pleased to say that it ended with one too. The Count’s death in “Dracula A.D. 1972” is excellent. Van Helsing and Dracula battle inside the church and out into the courtyard. Again we have the 70′s chase music blaring, but it does add to the overall excitement of what’s happening. Van Helsing has planted a stake in the bottom of Dracula’s open grave, and with the help of some burning Holy Water to the face, Dracula falls in and impales himself. To finish the job, Van Helsing uses a shovel to force the Count’s body down further on the stake to kill him, and his body once again disintegrates into a pile of bones and then ashes.

Jessica, now free from Dracula’s spell, is embraced by her grandfather who says, “Requiescat In Pace Ultima”, which I thought was a perfectly lovely way to end the story.

Past, present or future, never count out the Count!

… † …

The Satanic Rites of Dracula

1973

Evil begets evil on the Sabbath of the Undead!

And here we are. The previous six films have all lead up to this, the final instalment of Hammer’s Lee Dracula films. This one has taken quite a tongue lashing from critics over the years, being dubbed the worst in the Hammer Dracula series.

Once again Hammer has abandoned period settings, bringing Dracula into the modern world as they did in “Dracula A.D. 1972”, but the twist this time is that the Count himself has been modernized. He’s now masquerading as a reclusive businessman — D.D. Denham – who is plotting to do a lot more than bite a few pretty girls. I suspect that Hammer may well have continued indefinitely with the Dracula films after this one (they did make one final Dracula film the following year — “Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires” — with John Forbes-Robertson taking up the role of the Count), but this was the final straw for Lee. “I reached my irrevocable full stop. Thereafter I flung myself out in the snow for the wolves to gorge themselves on, leaving the thing to carry on without me. I declared that I’d never go back on board unless the story faithfully followed the book, or alternatively if the account of Henry Irving and Dracula were set up (which had been considered).”

Once again, I’m must disagree with both the critics and Lee. I rewatched this film just a few days ago and while it may not be the typical Dracula movie, it is a delightfully clever take on the Dracula story and a very fitting end to Hammer’s Lee/Dracula partnership. No one can tell me that this isn’t a good film. The music, the directing of Alan Gibson, the atmosphere and tone: “The Satanic Rites” has a kind of James Bond feel to it. There are a lot of slow motion shots and a number of chase scenes. It’s all a great deal of fun and well executed.

Originally titled “Dracula is Dead but Alive and Living in London”, this film not only marked the final appearance of Christopher Lee as Dracula for Hammer, it was also the last time we would see Cushing and Lee team up in a film for the British production powerhouse. Cushing reprises his role as Professor Lorrimer Van Helsing, the character he played in “Dracula A.D. 1972” — “The Satanic Rites” picks up where “Dracula A.D.” left off, two years later – and he doesn’t disappoint.

Van Helsing’s granddaughter Jessica returns as well, this time played by the lovely Joanna Lumley. Stephanie Beacham was to reprise her role, but was unavailable at the time of filming. Which is a true shame. Lumley does a beautiful job, but being a true sequel to the other film, having all recurring actor/characters would have been nice.

While Hammer is well known for its use of gratuitous female nudity (1970′s “The Vampire Lovers” being a prime example), this is the only Lee/Dracula film to show completely bare breasts. I may stand corrected on that, but having just spent the last week rewatching every last one of these seven films, it’s the only instance I recall.

So what is “The Satanic Rites” about? Well, the plot is simple and complicated at the same time. There are four prominent businessmen, each from a different realm of societal importance, taking part in what appears to be a Satanic ritual. A girl is killed but miraculously comes back to life. “Death is no prison for those who have given their souls to the Prince of Darkness,” cult leader, servant of Dracula and vampire herself, Chin Yang, tells the men.

The “Baptism of Blood” ceremony was witnessed by an undercover police agent and Van Helsing is brought in to consult on the case. He suspects that this isn’t just a regular Black Mass ritual performed by Satanists, but rather a cult that worships blood. Human blood specifically. A cult of vampirism.

One of the men, Professor Julian Keeley (Freddie Jones), is an acquaintance of Van Helsing’s. Paying him a visit, it is discovered that Keeley has created a new, more virulent strain of the Black Death, aka the Plague, and a means of accelerating it. He explains to a horrified Van Helsing that infected flesh literally rots on the bones. And the contagion spreads by touch. Within seconds it takes over the whole system, and it can live in a saline solution indefinitely.

Van Helsing is shot while confronting Keeley about his involvement with the cult, but the bullet just grazes his forehead. It is then we learn that Dracula is of course the one who commissioned the professor to create the strain. Once Keeley’s work is completed, however, he is promptly eliminated by Dracula’s henchman.

Van Helsing begins to see what Dracula’s end game is. Realizing that if Dracula’s plague spreads it will wipe out all of mankind, Van Helsing speculates that the lord of corruption, master of the undead, Count Dracula, wants to end his existence. That he yearns for final peace. It’s the ultimate revenge – the biblical prophecy of Armaggedon — take the entire universe down with him.

Van Helsing eventually confirms that D.D. Denham is indeed Dracula, and both he and Jessica become prisoners of the Count. “Witness my supreme triumph. Van Helsing, I choose the spawn of your blood to be my Consort.” A highlight of the film is this tense exchange of dialogue between Van Helsing and the egomaniacal vampire. “The instrument of my final conquest” – Dracula pulls out the vial of Plague — “In the days to come, you will pray for death.” “Is this your own death wish?” Van Helsing asks Dracula.

There were to be four carriers to spread the plague among the people. Keeley is dead, so Van Helsing is to take his place. The other three businessmen are present in the scene and become enraged when they learn Dracula’s true intentions – both for the plague and for them. The men thought it was to be used just as a deterrent, and having learned the truth, one man – holding the vial – begins to protest. Dracula, using mind control, makes him break the vial, infecting himself as the chime of midnight rings out. Immediately he falls to the ground, writhing in pain, his skin blistering off.

Meanwhile there’s an explosion upstairs, the result of a fight between Inspector Murray and one of the henchmen. The fire spreads and the room downstairs bursts into flames. Murray takes Jessica and escapes, leaving Van Helsing to battle Dracula. The two men fight, with Van Helsing breaking a window and escaping outside, running into the forest. Dracula follows.

Dracula is lured into a patch of hawthorn bushes which he promptly gets caught in. The thorns catch in his cape, scratching at his face and hands. He struggles and falls free of the bush, but his foot is caught, and Van Helsing swiftly runs him through with a fence post, ending the Count’s reign of terror at last. Dracula’s body begins to smoke, and in a scene reminiscent of the first film, his body disintegrates leaving only a skeleton and then a pile of smouldering ash. Van Helsing pics up Dracula’s ring, and so ends Hammer’s two decade Dracula saga.

The Masters of Menace Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. They’re dead but they’re alive …

… † …

Christopher Lee would don his famous Dracula cape a few more times, but never again for Hammer. It was truly the end of an era. A gloriously gory, mercilessly macabre era, full of bright colours, over the top sets and larger than life characters. These films proved that low-budget doesn’t necessarily mean low-quality. I can appreciate and enjoy watching Bela Lugosi unassumingly slink around in his black and white world, but I’m a Hammer girl at heart. I bleed in Technicolour and Christopher Lee will forever be my Count.

… † …

Slowly you creep down the stone steps, descending into the damp, dark, musty crypt alone. A wooden stake in one hand, clutching a crucifix to your chest with the other. You can feel it, can’t you? In the air, all around? Evil. Pure evil. You’re trembling. Are you afraid? You should be.

As you turn the last corner and step into the candlelit tomb, a chill runs through you, like an electrical current in the air. Look, there, in the corner. A coffin. It’s in there… he’s in there.

Dracula.

That undead menacing fiend. That blood-sucking parasite who for centuries has terrorized the innocent; maiming and killing, preying on those that cannot help themselves. The man who has fuelled a thousand nightmares.

Looking up, you watch through a small window as the last sliver of daylight disappears below the horizon.

It’s time. Time to end his reign of terror once and for all.

You approach the coffin cautiously. His minions won’t be a problem. You took care of them already. Smart. It’s just you and him now. A fight to the death for the salvation of humanity.

Come around the coffin. Come! You don’t want to but you have to! You’re the only one who can end this! Come now! Before he wakes!

The mighty Count lies in silent repose. His face smooth and pale, only his ruby-stained lips betray any signs of… life. He looks so vulnerable and harmless this way, doesn’t he? Don’t be fooled. He is neither.

You must hurry. Any second now it’ll be too late. There, a rock on the ground. Use that. Here… place the stake here, over his heart. Stop trembling and hold it steady. You’ll only get one shot. If you miss, it’s all over.

Holding the stake over his heart, summoning every ounce of courage you possess, you raise the rock above your head. Your heart is pounding, you can feel it in your ears. It’s alright, it’s nearly over, you can do this. You MUST.

Suddenly a gust of cold air rushes the room and the candles flicker out.  All your muscles tense up, your senses on high alert.  And then…..

His eyes snap open! Those cold, dead eyes, boring right through you. You hear your own sharp intake of breath but don’t hesitate! Do it! Do it now! His hands shoot up, you raise the rock, trying to hold the stake in place while he snarls and hisses and spits, and then ……..

. . .

What? Hammer’s Dracula saga may be over, but they don’t call him the immortal Count for nothing.

Until next time. Unpleasant dreams . . .

^..^