I can’t even imagine how fun it must have been to be a kid growing up in the 1960s. Television-wise, I mean. Last week, ABC gave us our first day in the life of “The Addams Family”. And now here we are, just one week later, and CBS is about to say, “We call your House of Horror, ABC, and raise you a monster.” Or four.

In the late 1950s, early ’60s, there was a revival of classic horror. “The Addams Family” and “The Munsters” were the networks’ attempt to capitalize on this trend.

1964 was dubbed “The Year of the Ghoul” by LIFE magazine, and on September 24th, “The Munsters” was born. For 50 years now, people have enjoyed the fun and silliness that the monstrous, all-American suburban family called Munster brought to TV screens.

“The Addams Family” premiered a week earlier, but you might be interested to learn that “The Munsters” was conceived first, and in fact, ABC was the network originally interested in picking it up. So for those out there who like to argue which really came first… technically speaking, “The Addams Family” is the rip-off, and it was ABC who copied CBS. *ahem* But let’s not dwell on semantics. We’re all fans of both here. ;P

As I proposed in my last post, there are two kinds of people in the world — Addams Family people, and Munsters people. While the majority of my readers (okay, ALL of you so far!) picked “The Addams Family” as your favourite, I have been a Munsters girl all my life.

What is it about “The Munsters” that “The Addams Family” didn’t have for me? Well, I’ve been asking myself that for years. I always felt as if this show didn’t take itself quite as seriously as the other did. The Addams Family was more adult — the humour was a bit darker, it was full of innuendo, geared to a much more mature audience — and to me, it simply wasn’t as much fun. The Addamses were just strange and kooky people, with a penchant for the macabre. But the Munsters are real monsters! The Addams clan are all straight-up, red-blooded human beings (perhaps with the exception of Cousin Itt), but Herman, Lily, Grandpa and Eddie are not. In fact, each member of the family represents a different classic monster. Grandpa is actually identified as the real Count Dracula; Herman is clearly a Frankenstein-type monster; Eddie is a werewolf. And ghoulish Lily seems to be a mix of the Bride of Frankenstein AND one of the brides of Dracula! It’s absolutely brilliant, this monstrous departure from the predictable “family” norm.

Herman (Fred Gwynne), Lily (Yvonne De Carlo), Eddie (Butch Patrick), and Grandpa (Al Lewis)

It was so much easier to get “involved” with the Munsters. When they went on adventures or Grandpa was busy in his laboratory, I always felt like I was right there. Whereas with “The Addams Family”, I was just a spectator looking in. And we rarely left the Addams homestead. But the Munsters had two super cool cars and visited all sorts of fun, out of the way places.

Okay, enough about those inferior Addamses for right now. Today’s anniversary is all about “The Munsters”! Welcome to 1313 Mockingbird Lane.

“My Fair Munster” was the first episode to be filmed, but “Munster Masquerade” was the first to air, officially making it episode 1. “My Fair Munster” also incorporates some footage from the Munsters 15-minute unaired pilot. Fun fact about that: It was in colour, and featured different actors in the roles of Lily and Eddie. In fact, there was no “Lily” yet. Joan Marshall is billed in the opening credits as “Phoebe”, and she has a very distinct Morticia vibe going on. And a really creepy frickin’ kid (Happy Derman) is a hissing, snarling, somewhat rabid-looking Eddie Munster. Glad they sorted THAT out before the show aired. (The Twilight Zone’s Billy Mumy was originally offered the role of Eddie Munster, but declined because his parents didn’t like the idea of so much makeup and hair dyeing.)

Here’s the unaired pilot. It’s worth clicking just to hear the absolutely awful theme music that is NOTHING like the theme we all know and love.

“The Munsters” underwent some serious changes in its much too short, 70-episode, 2-season run. The most obvious was the departure of Beverly Owens as the Munster’s niece, Marilyn. Owens was very unhappy being in California (where “The Munsters” was filmed). Her fiancé lived in New York, and after 13 episodes, she left the show. Her final episode was “Family Portrait”, which is possibly the most ironic script of the series: The Munsters are chosen by a magazine as “The average American family”. Obviously when the reporter and photographer show up, they find the Munsters are anything BUT “average”.

Taking over the role of the family’s “ugly duckling” Marilyn Munster (a quippy play on Marilyn Monroe, in case you were wondering), was actress Pat Priest. She was a reasonable replacement (pretty much looked the part), but I definitely prefer Beverly Owens. For me, Priest’s interpretation of the character lacked the subtlety of Owens’s. Owens’s Marilyn had this quiet, melancholy sadness about her (probably a reflection of her personal unhappiness on the show), and I always felt that Marilyn Munster needed that. She’s the outcast; the one who isn’t normal. She should be shy and soft-spoken because she’s so insecure about her appearance. Pat Priest portrays a much stronger Marilyn, one who is NOT as believably insecure. It really changed the dynamic of the show. But nevertheless, Priest made something fun out of the role, and I think audiences were just happy to have their “relatable” character still a part of the family.

Beverly Owens and Pat Priest

A cast change meant an updated opening. The opening credits for the first 13 episodes began with Yvonne De Carlo and ended with Fred Gwynne. But the new opening bumps Gwynne to the forefront, showing him emerging from under the grand staircase.

We also get a brand new opening sequence for the second season — updated theme music and all. The slow, hauntingly creepy sound of season one is replaced with a faster, louder, more modern (and bordering on obnoxious compared to the original) sound — definitely a reflection of the music scene at the time. The second season intro also takes us outside the Munsters’ residence, showing clumsy Herman crashing through the front door onto the porch. It also features Lily in her gorgeous casket-liner cape.

I seriously go BATTY over Lily’s necklace.

A step backwards for season two however, is that we no longer see the episode title after the opening credits roll. The producers, writer and director’s taglines in the famous Munster dripping font are still shown, but that’s it. Which is a real shame. I hate to see features taken away instead of being added.

You know, the more I write, the clearer it becomes why I like “The Munsters” better than “The Addams Family”. Munsters writers Joe Connelly and Bob Mosher were always using the show to comment on popular culture. The Munsters is full of then-present-day references to other TV shows, social trends and happenings. The show itself is a sort of tongue-in-cheek spoof on life at the time!

My favourite TV reference is from season 2, episode 1, “Herman’s Child Psychology” where Herman says, “I just don’t understand what went wrong with my child psychology; it always worked on Leave It To Beaver.”

A few other fun zingers:

Grandpa: “Will you be quiet, Igor? Oh, he hates television ever since Bat Masterson went off the air.” ~ From “Rock-a-Bye Munster”, S1E4 (Note: Igor is Grandpa’s pet bat.)

Lily to Herman: “We look up to you to guide us and protect us against the trials and tribulations of life. You have made, right here at home, our own Ponderosa.” ~ From “Herman’s Raise”, S1E37 (A reference to another show I adore, “Bonanza”. Yvonne De Carlo guest starred in the premiere episode, “A Rose For Lotta”, in 1959.)

Now see? These little pop culture quips are clever! They required some thought. And by disguising them with humour, you create a whole other dimension to the show. The Addams Family’s humour wasn’t really “clever”, it was just “odd” and “eccentric” people saying unexpected or twisted things. For me, “The Munsters” drew many more legitimate laughs than “The Addams Family” ever did. The Addamses are sort of like a freak show — its entertainment comes mostly from a “What the heck?” or “I can’t believe it!” standpoint. When I watch the Munsters, it just seems like the writers put more effort into the actual writing process. They didn’t want you to shake your head, they wanted you to laugh out loud because it’s funny humour.

And the show WAS funny. My favourite episode is season two’s “The Fregosi Emerald”. It’s Marilyn’s birthday, and Eddie’s gift is a ring he found in the attic. Grandpa takes one look at it, cries, “Oh, no, the Fregosi Emerald!”, and passes out. When he finally comes to, he explains that the emerald ring is cursed.

Herman is immediately skeptical about the so-called “curse”. But Marilyn returns home early from her date in tears. Her clothes are torn and she’s covered with mud. As she explains her terrible streak of bad luck, Grandpa warns that it’s the curse at work. Still not satisfied, Herman convinces Lily to wear the ring the next morning as a test. But her oatmeal turns to stone and the pop-overs literally start popping out of the pan as the Fregosi emerald blinks on her finger. When she takes it off, the popping abruptly stops. She slips it back on… and Herman gets pummeled by the pop-overs. “I’m sorry, Herman, but I’ve HAD IT!” says Lily as she slams the ring down onto the table.

But stubborn and determined to prove everyone wrong, Herman decides to wear the ring himself. “Fregosi curse… come and get me!” And right on cue, the water heater falls out of the wall next to Herman and smashes through the table, spewing water everywhere. Grandpa yells for Herman to take off the ring, but it gets stuck on his finger.

Now that he’s a walking magnet for bad luck, the family sits poor Herman in the middle of the family room, cordoned off with some rope and a sign reading, “Stay Away! Bad Luck!” Grandpa makes suggestions on how to get the ring off, but Herman and Lily have already tried them all, each of them failing miserably.

Suddenly Lily has an idea. If they can’t get the ring off of Herman, maybe they can remove the curse from the emerald instead. But the curse can only be lifted by a descendent of the Fregosi who made it in the first place. So Grandpa places a call to Werewolf Junction, Transylvania (how can you not love that?) to find out if there are any Fregosis left. There’s a fun exchange between Grandpa and the operator (Louise Glenn), who is a BIG fan of Count Dracula. Get a load of this great dialogue.

Grandpa: “You’ve heard of me?”

Operator: “Oh, I’ve heard your praises sung ever since my childhood! You once bit my grandmother. Her maiden name was Lois Schultz. She was quite tall, about 6’5”. She loved to dance and she jumped center for the girls’ basketball team.”

Grandpa: “Lois Schultz? Well, I’m sorry I just can’t seem to –“

Operator: “Listen, don’t apologize. If you had a grubnitz for every girl you bit…”

Grandpa: “I’d be as rich as Transylvania T & T.”

See? Pure fun! Grandpa asks if there are any living Fregosis. Turns out there’s one Fregosi left, conveniently living in Detroit, Michigan. Occupation? Automobiles. His name? “Henry J. Fregosi, Chairman of the Board of Amalgamated Motors”. I’m sure you can pick up the cute cultural reference there. Man, I really like this show.

So off Lily, Herman and Grandpa fly to Detroit. At first, Mr. Fregosi (who looks enough like Bela Lugosi that he could play him in a biography) denies any ties to Transylvania. But as soon as he lays eyes on the cursed emerald, he recoils, admitting he’s had to hide his “powers of black magic” in order to be a success in the business world.

Begging that the Munsters keep his secret, he agrees to remove the curse, and opens a secret panel in his office which leads to, what else? A super-cool mad scientist’s laboratory.

Paul Reed really gets into character now as Fregosi, donning a sorcerer’s robe and hat, and sorry, I just can’t help myself. Here’s some more delicious dialogue for you to enjoy.

Fregosi: “As Chairman of the Board of Amalgamated Motors, I put curses on rival automobiles.”

Herman: “What do you do? Hide emeralds in the glove compartments?”

Fregosi: “Oh, no. That would be too expensive. I put the whammy on their gas gauges and the owners think they’re getting poorer mileage. Or I jam their car radios with my commercials. It all comes under the heading of what I like to refer to as “Creative Management”.

Grandpa: “Have you ever put a curse on the whole automobile?”

Fregosi: “Only once. I assume you’ve heard of the Edsel.”

(Look at this guy. He’s just totally into it.)

Fregosi makes up a witch’s brew with all sorts of crazy ingredients, all while laughing maniacally, and then recites this incantation:

“Elves and witches, ghosts and ghouls, demons from the stygian pools. I command you, as your king, please uncurse this crummy ring.”

The ring starts blinking on Herman’s finger, we see some very cool little lightning bolts coming from it as it makes a sizzling sound, then there’s an explosion and the ring falls to the floor.

With the curse broken, the happy Munsters return home and give the ring back to Marilyn. As Lily comments on how the whole family has had nothing but the best of luck since the curse was removed, suddenly, an excited Eddie comes running down the stairs with more treasure he’s found in the attic. He thinks it’s a marble, but Grandpa looks grim. “That’s not a marble,” Grandpa said. “That’s the Nathanson Ruby!”

Eddie asks if it has a curse on it. “Does it have a curse on it? Well, I’ll put it this way: Compared to the Nathanson Ruby, the Fregosi Emerald was considered a good luck charm! To protect my loved ones, I’m gonna throw it away.” Now, of course we know that an episode of the Munsters can’t just END with everything hunky dory. So just as Grandpa opens the door to throw it outside, in walks Herman, right into Grandpa’s path, and what does he do? Swallows the ruby! The episode ends with Grandpa off to look up Prince Nathanson’s phone number, a typical “Well, here we go again!” look on his face. Curses, curses, what is with the rich putting curses on their jewels?

Now, I apologize for writing out the ENTIRE episode, but I just can’t stress enough how cool this show was!

And it’s really thanks to the chemistry between Fred Gwynne and Al Lewis that “The Munsters” works so well. The two had already worked together on another show, “Car 54, Where Are You?”, a police sitcom that ran from 1961-63. The antics of Herman and Grandpa are a sheer delight. They’re funny, silly, and sometimes downright ridiculous. But no matter what situation or hair-brained scheme these two found themselves wrapped up in, they always pulled together as a team to come through it.

There’s so much more I want to say about “The Munsters”. I could easily keep going for another 2500 words. But this is a blog post, not a book, so I’ll save the rest for another time. Suffice it to say that thanks to the magic of film and television, my childhood was greatly enriched with hours upon hours of this classic masterpiece. “The Munsters” had it all: Quirky yet relatable characters, amazing visual appeal, solid stories that were bursting with pop culture quips, and even some lessons on life. The only thing truly monstrous about the Munsters was how big Herman’s heart was. Said the New York Times on September 25, 1964:

But it is Mr. Gwynne who walks off with the show and makes palatable even the extremes of broad slapstick to which the program is not immune. His gift for underplaying adds enormously to the hilarious image of the heart of gold beneath the forbidding facial exterior.

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

Man was made in the image and likeness of God, which means that we have the ability to reason, to use logic, to divide Truth from Falsehood, and to choose to Love or to Hate. It’s a battle which rages inside each and every one of us daily. Because deep down, we’re all fighting against the same thing.

Instinct.

Animals live by instinct. They can’t reason, they don’t rationalize. They just react. And under the right set of circumstances, man can become nothing more than a beast of instinct too; rejecting his ability to choose. And when that happens, the consequences are often quite severe.

There is no greater instinct than the drive to survive.

In 1961, future “Hogan’s Heroes” star Bob Crane was hosting a California morning radio show at KNX CBS. Crane served as host between 1957 and 1965, and just a few weeks after The Twilight Zone’s third season episode “The Shelter” aired, Rod Serling was his guest on the show.

“The Shelter” is a frightening illustration of what happens when the instinct to survive overtakes your ability to think (and therefore act) rationally. This Serling-penned script is one of TZ’s finest, and boasts an important lesson that packs quite a wallop.

The story opens innocently enough with a birthday/dinner party for physician Bill Stockton. A few of his friends and neighbours have gathered to wish him many happy returns. But their toasting and reverie comes to an abrupt halt when they hear a disturbing radio announcement: The president has declared a state of yellow alert after confirming radar evidence of unidentified flying objects, and urges that those with prepared shelters get to them.

This breaks up the dinner party fast, sending the neighbours scrambling to get back to their homes. But as it turns out, only the good doctor has had the foresight to build a shelter in his basement. As panic takes over, the neighbours, with children in tow, all come clamouring for a spot in Bill’s shelter — a shelter that’s only big enough for Bill, his wife, Grace and their son, Paul.

What unfolds next is a living nightmare. A complete degeneration into chaos. The neighbours work themselves into a mad frenzy, and decide that if they can’t use the shelter to survive, then neither will Bill and his family. They begin pummeling the door, determined to break it down, as a shocked and terrified Bill, Grace and Paul listen from inside to the mob’s screams of wild lunacy.

At one point Grace says, “Bill, who are those people?” He replies, “Those people… those people are our neighbours, our friends, the people we’ve lived with and alongside for 20 years.”

As fear mounts among them, the angry neighbours finally succeed in smashing through the shelter door. Bill has had the radio on the entire time, and just as they break in, an important message starts: “The president of the United States has just announced that the previously unidentified objects have now been definitively ascertained as being satellites. There are no enemy missiles approaching. They are harmless and we are in no danger. The state of emergency has officially been called off.”

The relief among the neighbours is palpable, as they all turn to each other, apologizing for the things they’ve said and done while they were so frightened. It’s only a matter of moments before one of them suggests a block party to pay for the damages they’ve done to Bill’s house and shelter. “Anything to get back to normal,” one of them says. What follows is some of my favourite dialogue from the entire series. Only Serling could pen this so perfectly.

Bill Stockton: “Normal? I don’t know. I don’t know what normal is. I thought I did once. I don’t anymore.”

Jerry reiterates that he and the others will pay for the damages to Bill’s home.

Bill Stockton: “Damages? I wonder. I wonder if any one of us has any idea what those damages really are. Maybe one of them is finding out what we’re really like when we’re normal — the kind of people we are just underneath the skin. I mean all of us. A lot of naked, wild animals who put such a price on staying alive that they’ll claw their neighbours to death just for the privilege. We were spared a bomb tonight, but I wonder. I wonder if we weren’t destroyed even without it.”

Serling received 1300 letters and cards in just two days after “The Shelter” aired on September 29, 1961. When we watch the episode today, in the year 2014, it’s easy to forget that this aired during a time when people lived in constant fear of attack — either from other countries or from outer space. If you were a child growing up in the ’50s and ’60s, you’ll likely remember bomb drills in school. People WERE building shelters in their basements and backyards, and they were most certainly afraid.

The episode in and of itself really makes you sit up and take notice. Like all of the greatest TZs, it gets you thinking: What would *I* do if I were in this situation, either as the person with the shelter, or the person without?

I want to highlight what I found to be the most interesting part of Crane’s short interview with Serling.

Crane asks him if the finished episode was the ending Serling wanted, or if he had wanted to end it more strongly.

“No, because I’m not one of those knowledgeable men. I don’t know. I was up in the air about it morally and ethically. I didn’t know how to end that thing. I didn’t know what position philosophically I could take.”

Crane then asks Serling if he himself is building a shelter. And this was the part that really struck a chord with me.

“No, we’re not now,” Serling begins. “Were you?” Crane asks. “For a while we thought very seriously of it. Yeah, we did. And now we’ve decided that no, we’re not going to build it.”

Crane: “Why?”

Serling: “Well, for very realistic, stringently realistic reasons, it’s my feeling now that if we survive, what are we surviving for? What kind of a world do we go into? You know, if it’s rubble and poison water and inedible food, and my kids have to live like wild beasts, I’m not particularly sure I want to survive in that kind of world.”

Think about that for a while. The inherent instinct in man is to survive. At all costs. But as Serling postulates, it can’t just be about surviving. What ARE you surviving for? Does there not come a time where circumstance and situation favours an end rather than a continuation of nothing?

Is this not what separates us from the animals? Reacting based on evidence and reason rather than on a primal, emotional feeling?

If there was destruction on a massive scale, would you really want to survive? Would you want to be like Henry Bemis, shuffling through the rubble? Let’s not forget that there would be bodies among that rubble — your friends, your family, your neighbours. Would you want to leave your children alone in a world where as Serling says, they have to live like wild beasts? Fighting other people for food and water (if it’s even edible), fighting every day just to survive?

Existing is NOT the same as living. And I don’t want to simply exist. But these are not easy questions to answer, are they? What would *I* do? But it’s good to think on them sometimes. And the reason The Twilight Zone is such a special show is because Rod Serling, perhaps more than most people, wanted to LIVE. He wasn’t satisfied to just exist either. So he asked those tough questions; he illustrated these scenarios and put forth ideas; he got people talking and thinking and questioning. Living requires thought and growth, and you can’t grow without learning, and questioning, and ultimately doing.

How ironic that a man so full of life would live such a short one. But what he did in that short time is amazing. Here we are, 53 years later, still talking about what he wrote, and the ideas he put forth.

For those of us who are Christians, we don’t fear death, because death is not the end. Survival in a world that’s been terrorized and destroyed would only delay us from getting “home”. Now, I’m not saying that as Christians we should have a death wish! No. But like Serling, I too might be tempted to skip the shelter. I’m not sure. I just thank God that I’m not in a position right now where I have to make that choice.

One thing I DO know for sure, though: I do NOT want to become an animal. I don’t want to ever be like Bill’s neighbours in “The Shelter”, running roughshod and out of control. These things CAN happen. It IS reality. And this is why it’s good to be reminded of them. So that we might remind ourselves that we are not animals of instinct. We are human beings. To quote from another Serling TZ: “Something to dwell on and to remember, not only in The Twilight Zone, but wherever men walk God’s Earth.”

Tonight’s very small exercise in logic from the Twilight Zone.

You can listen to Bob Crane’s interview with Rod Serling here.

◊   ◊   ◊   ◊   ◊

As a fun Boss/Gal Friday experiment, Paul and I decided to each write our own blog post today about “The Shelter”. Normally, we share early drafts and discuss what we’re writing about as we’re doing it. But this time, we thought it would be interesting to see how differently we’d each approach the same topic. We both completely finished our piece before sending it along to the other to read/edit so that neither of us would influence the other’s perspective.

And Paul’s post certainly didn’t disappoint! It’s a wonderfully thoughtful look at this episode and the issues it presents. So be sure to head over to Shadow & Substance and read Paul’s take on “The Shelter” in his post, “Gimme ‘Shelter': The Perils of Survival at Any Price“.

If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also.

If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin.

Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin. He who hates me hates my Father as well. If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen miracles, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’

~ John 15:18-27

Note: The painting is Annibale Carracci’s “Mocking of Christ”, 1596.

You don’t need to visit the local art gallery to see some incredible works of art. Two years ago I wrote “The Art of Horror” — a blog post that highlighted the lost art of illustrated film posters.

It wasn’t until the 1980s that illustrated movie posters really started to fall out of vogue. And such a shame that they did too. In my previous post, I focused on posters and artists from Hollywood’s Golden Age. But this time, I’m going to dive head first into a pool of glorious Technicolour — the posters of Hammer Films.

From the late 50’s through the 70’s, the British production company was well known for its love and use of bright colour, scantily clad bodies, lavish sets, and often garish special effects. And you know what? I loved every bit of it. And if you don’t? Something’s seriously the matter with you. ;P

Not surprisingly, the posters commissioned to sell said films are equally impressive and recognizable. While horror was Hammer’s forte, some of their best posters are from non-horror films. So let’s begin with my favourite.

Regular readers of my blog know that I’m crazy about pin-up art, and that’s pretty much what this is. Rachel Welch and Ursula Andress were real-life pin-ups at the time. And it’s a good thing Andress looks so fantastic in this poster, because her acting was below sub-par in the film. Just terrible. But Tim Chantrell’s illustration for this double-billing is exquisite.

The poster is from 1966, the year “One Million Years B.C.” was released. “She” came out the previous year. Everyone’s taste is different, but for me, this poster is perfection. The colours are bright and vibrant, and although the piece is divided right down the middle, Chantrell was careful to choose a complementary colour palette for each film.

To my eye, nothing is more pleasing than symmetry. But perfect symmetry can be boring. True artist that he is, Chantrell kept symmetry in the layout, but then tweaked each individual component to keep it visually interesting. An equal-sized portion of the poster has been devoted to each film. The placement of the movie titles is the same on both sides, and the colour is the same. Each actress’s name is done in the same font, and is the same size. And we have a text border at both the top and the bottom. There’s what makes up the perfect symmetry.

But then Chantrell does a little tweaking to add visual appeal. The title fonts while similar, are different. And though each girl takes up the same amount of space towards the center of the poster, each is striking a different pose. Now take a peek at the backgrounds behind them. Again, the layout is nearly a mirror image, but Chantrell uses colour to break up the monotony. To me, this is THE best poster that Hammer ever produced. It’s perfection in both visual appeal and design theory. I would most certainly hang this on my wall as a legitimate work of art.

Manchester artist Tom Chantrell is responsible for many of Hammer’s film posters. Hundreds of posters (not just for Hammer) can be attributed to his hand. Another example of his work for Hammer is this fabulous 1966 double-bill poster for “Rasputin: The Mad Monk” and “The Reptile”.

This poster has a special place in Hammer’s history. It marks the first time the company branded themselves as “The House of Horror”.

Chantrell’s work for 1968’s “The Lost Continent” has a nice vintage vibe to it. The colours are muted, but all the better to showcase his wonderfully detailed illustration. Not to mention appeal to a slightly older audience. People who are interested in a little substance rather than just an over-indulgent flash in the pan (which, let’s be honest, is exactly what most Hammer films were).

This is a picture you’d expect to see in an old adventure book that your grandpa had when he was a boy. And that’s the point, really. The purpose of a movie poster is to pique people’s interest enough that they’ll pay to see the film. So a good poster artist knows how to capture his audience’s attention. In this case, he’s appealing to their sense of nostalgia and adventure. “The Lost Continent” is more suspense with a hint of mystery than it is horror, and the image on this poster does an excellent job of drawing you in. Everything about this tells me he’s trying to appeal to an older generation of viewers. My favourite thing about this poster is how Chantrell has incorporated a lot of movement. The boat is sitting up out of the water, and the octopus/kraken’s tentacles are flailing around. It’s a masterpiece.

Another beautifully illustrated poster is this one for 1970’s “When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth”.

“Enter an age of unknown terrors, pagan worship and virgin sacrifices.” Well, if that doesn’t scream Hammer, I don’t know what does.

Here’s an interesting one. This is the Italian poster for “Frankenstein Created Woman”, 1967.

Different posters were designed for a film’s distribution in other countries. And I’ve found that oftentimes, I prefer the foreign release posters to the domestic ones. The composition of this piece is what sells it for me. You’ve got one dominant, stationary subject in the foreground, illuminated and brightly coloured so that she stands out, but still complements the background. Your eye is drawn around the entire picture thanks to that bright spot above the castle and Peter Cushing’s likeness’s striking red eyes. This poster just LOOKS good.

As does this interesting French/Dutch version of the same film.

An exceptional example of fine art-quality illustration is this double-billing of “Frankenstein and the Monster From Hell”/”The Fists of Vengeance” poster by Bill Wiggins.

Just look at those hands on the creature! And it’s one tiny detail that takes this piece from good to great. The one finger coming in front of the movie’s title, which gives you the wonderful 3-dimensional illusion that the monster is reaching out to grab at you. Strong shadows on his hands also help to pull them into the foreground.

Another great foreign release poster is this Italian version of “Horror of Frankenstein” (1970).

This reminds me a little of Karoly Grosz’s poster for 1932’s “Murders in the Rue Morgue”. One of my favourites in “The Art of Horror” post. The best thing about Hammer’s posters is the same thing that made their films stand out so much — colour. Colour can do so much for a work of art. It can also ruin a piece if you choose the wrong colours. But these posters have so much life in them. They’re vibrant and bold, just like Hammer’s films are. And I think it’s wonderful that in the case of Hammer, the poster art represents the film art so well.

The final poster is for “The Curse of the Werewolf” (1961). A fun piece that’s once again the perfect balance of colour, content and layout. I really like when there’s room for a little written introduction right on the poster.

You’ll notice that some posters are in the traditional portrait style (the height is greater than the width), but there are also these fantastic landscape ones too. This wasn’t always the case. Between about 1910 – 1935, most British film posters were based on the traditional Victorian theatre-poster layout — portrait style, roughly 40″x30″ — and similar to the American “One-Sheet” movie poster format which was 41″x27″. This was good because it meant that US posters could be imported directly into the UK, or the designs could at least be easily adapted with few changes to British-printed posters. But in 1936, UK distributor the Gaumont-British Picture Corporation changed the face of film posters forever when they introduced the 30″x40″ “Quad Crown” landscape layout. The public loved this new style, and by the end of the decade, everyone in Britain was using it.

This was a major breakthrough for British artists because it meant that poster designs coming in from the US were no longer easily compatible with the new British format of poster. And this opened the door for designing entirely new and different artwork for foreign films coming into Britain. What a momentous day in the history of art! It’s not uncommon to see three, four, or an even greater number of different poster designs for one film.

A variety of posters for Hammer’s “Dracula A.D. 1972″ (1972)

And I say, the more art there is to enjoy, the better! Especially when it’s Hammer.

So why don’t you go look up one of these fantastic Hammer films and get comfortable on the couch? Halloween is just around the corner, and you know what that means… more creepy horror-themed blog posts to come…

Until next time, unpleasant dreams . . .

^..^

It’s always enjoyable when you go looking for one thing but find something much cooler. That’s what happened to me the other day when I stumbled over an old magazine/comic interview with one of my favourites: legendary actor Christopher Lee. When it comes to articles from these neat old horror magazines and comics, it’s not often you can find transcripts of them, let alone high quality scans of the pages themselves. But much to my delight, this article was available on the wonderful internet library site archive.org — a site that is dedicated to preserving and providing access to all types of digitized information.

I consider my blog to be a gathering place of information as well. A place where I too would like to preserve certain things that interest me, as well as have my say about them. And with Halloween fast approaching, I thought what better addition to my own personal Seeker of Truth library than Christopher Lee talking horror, Dracula and Boris Karloff?

Along with Peter Cushing and Vincent Price, Lee is in my top 3 list of favourite actors. He played Count Dracula seven times for Hammer Films, and I adored him in every last one of them. I think he’s the best screen Dracula that’s ever lived. And his role as the Duc de Richleau in my favourite Hammer film “The Devil Rides Out” is simply fantastic.

This interview with Lee appeared in Skywald Publications’ comic magazine “Nightmare”, issue #17, from February 1974.

I swear, I was born in the wrong decade, I really was. Oh, to be a horror fan in the 1970s! When they had creepy comics and magazine, toys and promotions. The fact that all these are a thing of the past just makes me even more determined to help preserve all the awesomeness that I wish I’d been a part of.

Here are the actual magazine pages if you’d prefer to read the interview in all its original glory. Click on an image and when the image carousel opens, scroll down and click “view full size” on the right. I’m also including the full transcript of the piece as well, which will make for easy referencing and research later on. If you’re a fan of Lee or horror films in general, this is a must-read. And don’t forget to scroll to the end of this post for a few more thoughts from me!

…†…

An Exclusive Interview With Christopher “Dracula” Lee

THIS INTERVIEW WITH CHRISTOPHER LEE WAS TAPED THE 21st OF JULY, 1973, IN MADRID, SPAIN.

LEE: … I think this is as good a time as any to tell your readers that, probably, as things stand at the moment, I have no intention of playing the character DRACULA again. I have become progressively disenchanted with the way in which the character is presented on the screen, and with the stories in which the character is somehow, I think, indifferently fitted in, in order to have a movie with DRACULA appearing in it. First write a story, then try and find a way to adjust the character into the story, and this isn’t good enough for me. I’m therefore making that decision, that I don’t intend to play the character again, because I think the films are becoming poorer in content and style and in story, and therefore I’m no longer prepared to take any part in any of them. If anybody ever comes up with Bram Stoker’s book in its entirety, as he wrote it, I would do that. But I think that would be very expensive, and I doubt if that would ever happen, but that is one I would do . . .

How did you begin your DRACULA career?

LEE: . . . Sheer chance . . . I’d already played the FRANKENSTEIN creature in THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN for Hammer — you will notice I don’t use the word ‘horror’ . . . I never liked it — I presume that having seen what I could do, they decided I was also capable of playing the part of DRACULA, and it might not be a bad idea to have the same actor doing both parts. That is quite simply how it happened and how I became DRACULA – a part which has had a suitable effect on my career . . . but at the same time, which has also been very much of a mixed blessing to me. Because if one becomes too much associated with a certain character in the cinema, or television, or in the entertainment medium, people are inclined to think either that you can’t do anything else, that you don’t want to do anything else, or that you never do anything else. Of course, that is entirely untrue. I’ve done 123 films and I’ve played DRACULA 6 times. [He actually WOULD go on to play the Count for Hammer a seventh and final time in 1974's "The Satanic Rites of Dracula".] It seems the main interest in my work lies among the very young, which is a very hopeful thing from my point of view, for the future, because they will inevitably grow up and hopefully will maintain that interest. Many children come up to talk to me; all over the world children have seen some of these films, in countries where censorship doesn’t exist . . .

Are they ever frightened by you – do they ever confuse you with the DRACULA on-screen character?

LEE: . . . They may be a little awe-struck, but they’re never scared. In fact they’re very cheerful and I think they look on me as some sort of wicked uncle. They are certainly not frightened because children are very perceptive, and I think they realize that it is rather like a fairy story, and I think in some cases – the Grimm’s fairy stories and others – are far more gruesome and alarming and frightening than anything I’ve ever done on the screen. People of course can differentiate between reality and unreality, particularly children, and they know that DRACULA is not real . . .

I used to lock myself away in my dressing room and only appear on the set when people had more or less accustomed themselves to my appearance as Frankenstein . . . I was a very gruesome sight . . .

What’s the best film you’ve ever done – that is, the one you would want to be held as the best example of your work?

LEE: . . . Well again, what does one mean by the best? Obviously the one that had the most effect on my career was the first DRACULA in 1957, but I wouldn’t say by any stretch of the imagination this was the best film I’ve done. I can think of other Hammer films like SCREAM OF FEAR that are better pictures but that didn’t affect my career so much. I can think of THE TALE OF TWO CITIES done years ago, which was a good picture. I think what I’m doing now may have a tremendous effect on my career in-so-far as it may start me off in a completely new direction. THE THREE MUSKETEERS is romantic, exciting, full of adventure, thrills and humor and sword fights . . . I’ve 5 sword fights in this picture, each more violent and savage than the last . . . and believe me they are — we use real swords! I don’t know whether this is the best film I’ve ever made. I think probably the best I’ve been IN is THE PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES, as directed by Billy Wilder. If you take that comment as signifying an all round excellence of script, direction, casting and production, I think it was the best picture I’ve done and been in. That should be closely followed by THE WICKED MAN [this is an error by the author of the interview. It should be the 1973 film “The WICKER Man”] which I completed last November. Probably one of the best performances I’ve ever given was as RASPUTIN in a Hammer film. If it had been made by another company as a serious picture, I think it might have helped me considerably, but it was made once again, in the sort of Hammer-horror-mold and as such didn’t really benefit me very much . . .

DRACULA films, of course, have their roots in the Bram Stoker DRACULA novel … in your performances, which to a degree are defined by your script, do you concentrate on Stoker’s concept, or on an entirely personal characterization?

LEE: . . . I entirely concentrate on Stoker’s conception of DRACULA, and always have done. I try to portray him physically, even though incorrectly from the point of view of my appearance — not as an old man with a white moustache growing younger, although you may know I did this in a Spanish film [“El Conde Dracula”, 1970] — I’ve always tried to portray the character that Stoker defined in his writing. The character of aloof majesty, ferocity of dignity, and of sombre mystery, or irresistibility that the women find marvellous and the men unstoppable. The character that veered from the tigerish to the still, in the physical sense. In the Hammer DRACULA films I have not been Stoker’s physical description of the character, but in his description of the characterization of the character, if I may put it in such an involved way as that, I think I’ve tried to be true — irrespective of the script and the story — all the way through in the 6 pictures that I’ve done, to the author’s conception of the character . . .

The other DRACULA, Bela Lugosi, toured the United States with theatrical stagings of DRACULA as a play. . . 

LEE: . . . No — I would not like to do that . . . it would only serve to identify me even more to the public with the character, which as I said has been a mixed blessing. I would never do a stage tour, because that would be doing it even more than on the screen – more performances. This would only shackle me more to the character which has confined me to a certain extent too much already . . .

Do you believe Bela Lugosi’s identification with DRACULA was ‘real’ or theatrical?

LEE: . . . I didn’t see Lugosi’s DRACULA until about a year ago. I was in London and it was shown as a midnight movie. It was probably just as well, I don’t ever wish to copy other actors. I’ve certainly borrowed from them – every actor in history has certainly done that – but I wouldn’t wish to portray a character the same way as another actor has . . . but . . . I don’t know about Bela Lugosi’s identification with DRACULA. I only know that his widow, Lillian Lugosi, told me — and Karloff also told me this — that he was in no way confused about his relationship to the character. I do believe it is true that he was buried in DRACULA’s cape . . . but apart from that, I don’t believe there’s a word of truth in this business about him living in a house with gravestones in the garden and thinking he was DRACULA. I’m quite sure that this is just something that somebody dreamed up which makes a good publicity story. He was a highly intelligent, articulate man, and I believe by all accounts an extremely charming person. I can well believe that . . .

You’ve played DRACULA, RASPUTIN, THE MUMMY, FRANKENSTEIN’S MONSTER, FU MANCHU and so many other classic characters . . . who is your favorite?

LEE: . . . The most effective of course was DRACULA. THE MUMMY was the most physically difficult, because of the enormous feats of strength that I had to do. FU MANCHU was very difficult because basically he’s very, very far from being fictitious. In the days of the Empire, when the Empress sat on the throne, and warlords and people like FU MANCHU did exist . . . they behaved exactly like my character behaved on the screen; they were all powerful, ruthless, inscrutable, intelligent – some of them spoke flawless English – and so the character is not entirely fictitious at all. It was a most uncomfortable character from the point of view of make-up, because the Chinese make-up required plastic eyelids, which makes it impossible to raise or lower your eyes, but force you to keep your head on a level, otherwise when you look down your own eyelids show, and when you look up only the whites of your eyes show . . . it was very awkward, technically. RASPUTIN, I think, was my best performance of an actual and real character of history. A strange character this – indeed one of the strangest characters of all history – a real enigma. I recently read a book about RASPUTIN in which the author, indeed to my satisfaction, shows that RASPUTIN was one of the most maligned men in all history. He was nothing like the evil charlatan, drunkard and rapist as he has been presented. There was a great deal of the Saint in him! It would be very interesting indeed to know what kind of man the real RASPUTIN was. WHO was the real RASPUTIN? I don’t suppose we’ll ever know . . .

In “The Mummy”, someone thoughtfully locked and bolted the door I had to come through when I strangled Raymond Huntley, and so I smashed right through it and dislocated my shoulder.

Who’s your favorite horror star? What’s your favorite horror movie? and what’s your favorite horror story?

LEE: . . . That’s really difficult to answer . . . because you see, I haven’t SEEN all the great classics. I think the first FRANKENSTEIN, by BORIS KARLOFF — the James Whale FRANKENSTEIN . . . it was certainly the most imaginative film . . . and Karloff’s performance was quite brilliant – there are no other words for it – every time I see it I am amazed at what he did with so very little. I suppose the best horror film I’ve ever seen was ROSEMARY’S BABY – with its sense of atmosphere and subtlety. I think these are immensely important elements in this type of film. Favorite horror star? Well of course the greatest was unquestionably LON CHANEY. Then of course Boris! I hate to put people in order like that because each one is different, and everybody has their own way of doing things . . .

So many amusing stories come out from behind the scenes at movie sets that, really, are so completely entertaining to the public who never get to see behind the scenes . . . can you think of an anecdote or two . . . your favorite behind the scenes anecdote?

LEE: . . . There is an amusing interlude about all the 123 films that I have been in . . . but a few that I recall immediately to mind are in the first DRACULA and in THE MUMMY. In the first DRACULA I had to pick up a girl from the ground and throw her into a grave — and in the very first take I went in after her when I lost my balance. That is recorded on film somewhere and it gave a few laughs to the people who were watching . . . she was a stunt girl and not exactly a lightweight! In THE MUMMY someone thoughtfully locked and bolted the door I had to come through when I strangled RAYMOND HUNTLEY . . . and so I smashed right through it and dislocated my shoulder. Some of the window was made of real glass. Later I was carrying Yvonne Furneax down the road some 83 yards at night and I pulled every muscle in my neck and shoulders . . . which should perhaps indicate to some of your readers that filming isn’t quite so simple or luxurious as the public occasionally seems to think! There was quite an amusing incident on this film I’m in now, THE THREE MUSKETEERS. I had a fight scene at night with MICHAEL YORK and at certain moments we had to flash lanterns into each others faces. Of course, these lanterns had to be manipulated electrically, and at the end of the scene where we had finished with these lanterns the director said: “Well that’s alright, now disconnect the actors” . . .

PETER CUSHING seems to be a true gentleman. I don’t know how to describe this man as anything but an accomplished and exciting actor and a ‘true gentleman’ . . . what do you say about this man, with whom you’ve made so many horror films?

LEE: . . . He is really one of my dearest friends. He is brilliant and a devoted and disciplined actor. A man of complete integrity. A man of great skill, great personal charm and a very good human being . . .

LON CHANEY SR. once had a ‘mentor’ conversation with young BORIS KARLOFF, a few years before Karloff became well known – before he did FRANKENSTEIN – Chaney told Karloff, in short, that a powerful and unique style was what was important in the making of a star. “Give ‘em something no-one else can give them” he said.

LEE: . . . Boris never actually mentioned this to me but I’m sure its true. In those days when Chaney made pictures and Boris Karloff made his great pictures they were really pictures of great consequence. There was a really good reason to be in those pictures — they weren’t just cheap exploitation — which alas, they have become for the most part today. I still think that in this area I can probably give the public ‘something else’. Something that nobody else can give them. But I don’t want, as an actor, to go on giving the public something that nobody else can give them when that ‘something’ is not worthy of being shown on the screen; when the part is not worthy of being played; and the production is not worthy of appearing in. If I was able to go on making fantasy films, all of which were worth doing, with good production value and good stories — then I would be delighted to go on doing them. But unfortunately this isn’t happening . . . the material is getting worse. The only thing I can relate as far as Karloff is concerned, is that once, when we were discussing the effect of our performances on the audience, which took place during the year he died incidentally, he told me “always leave it to the audience”. Whatever you or I will do, or can do, on the screen, be quite sure that if we don’t do ‘it all’, the audience will imagine something far worse than you or I could possibly produce on the screen. Leave it to the audience . . . show an empty doorway 6 times and the 7th time there is somebody in it. And the 8th time you think there is going to be somebody in it and there isn’t, or the 8th time you DON’T think there is going to be somebody in it and there is . . .

HAMMER is often criticised because of all its bloody gore. The reason why film buffs say this is uncertain . . . whether it’s anti-aesthetic to be bloody, or whether it’s because of the WAY in which HAMMER is bloody, is uncertain. Do you have anything against profuse bloodiness, if it is well done?

LEE: . . . I object to too much blood, and I object to much violence. I think one of the reasons why these films of mine have been so successful all over the world, virtually to people of all ages, is that because basically they are fantasies, and are not real, and the violence in them, with very few exceptions, is violence which is highly unreal and for the most part impossible to copy in real life. You will always find the occasional, alas, unbalanced person who might try and copy something they’ve seen on the screen or in your comics, but to my mind pictures like CLOCKWORK ORANGE and STRAW DOGS and some of the James Bond films, are far more suggestive, and far more imbued with sexual sadism and violence which can be copied, and in some cases is! . . .

. . . you’ve said that, although you have no intention of turning your back on the fantasy film, you’ve become increasingly disenchanted with the material you’ve been given . . .

LEE: . . . I feel the material is losing style . . . it’s all too much just exploitation now — make it cheaply — get it in focus — shock ‘em — frighten them — something I’ve never attempted to do! I’m not concerned with selling films, I’m concerned with making films. I’m not trying to frighten an audience half out [of] its wits, I’m trying to entertain it. I’m trying to enable the audience to escape from its mundane, gray, drab and sometimes extremely depressing world – into an enchanted, weird, mysterious world of fantasy . . . gore has its place I suppose but I don’t like it . . .

Rasputin was one of the most maligned men in all history . . . there was a great deal of the saint in him . . . who was the real Rasputin?

On this point, a few years ago LON CHANEY JR. said: “I used to enjoy horror films when there was thought and sympathy involved, then they became comedies . . . the cheap producers came along and made buffoons out of the monsters . . . because they killed for the sake of killing, there was blood for the sake of blood. There was no thought, no true expression of acting, no true expression of feeling. We used to make up our minds before we started that this is a little fantastic, but let’s take it seriously . . . today it’s made as a joke “

LEE: . . . He died last week. I never had the pleasure of meeting him. He is absolutely right of course. I shall quote this remark of his whenever I can, in the future, because it is so true. Thought and sympathy – how right he is. As I once said, I think I coined the phrase in fact: ‘THE LONELINESS OF EVIL’. One should never play these films with one’s tongue planted firmly in one’s cheek unless it is with a deliberate attempt to do horror comedy or parody, and this type of thing is even more difficult to do. It’s an absolute MUST to be totally serious in what you’re doing and you must make it believable. There I am in complete and total agreement with what Lon Chaney Jr. said . . . I couldn’t have expressed it better myself if I had tried for a very long time . . .

What kind of horror or fantasy material would you like to do, and would it be as commercially acceptable as the material you have been recently offered? What I mean is, are the producers at fault because they tend to define commercialism by its most basic rules?

LEE: . . . probably the type of material I would like to do would NOT be as commercially acceptable . . . does the public want more blood? More and more sex? More and more violence? Or are they going to revolt against this complete revulsion, and turn around to the old romantic type of picture, which I think they will. I think we are at a turning point in the cinema. I think we’re going back to real people achieving something really exciting against great odds — battles, murder, and sudden death if you like — beautiful women and handsome rugged men — not actors, just dressed up like dummies. The great days were in the 30s in Hollywood, and in the early 40s, when they had all those magnificent adventure stories which everybody loved. I think people are getting sick to death of acres and acres of boring nudity, lashings of sex and buckets of blood. You can make a very exciting and very sexual, very sensual, very frightening picture without pouring gallons and avalanches of garbage all over the screen. My ideal film in this area would be one done with taste and style, which would have the right element of fantasy, a good script, a good director, and good actors. I’d be frightening without being damaging. I’d have plenty of suspense, plenty of subtlety, and plenty of suggestion. Heaven knows enough people have done films of this kind, Hitchcock being a case in point, and they were very successful . . .

In very few portrayals have you gone in for much make-up . . . the films I, MONSTER and THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN are the exceptions that come to mind. Has this been circumstance which has decided this? Or is this an attitude on your part?

LEE: . . . I think certain kinds of characters require distortion and deformed features like I, MONSTER which is MR. HYDE of course, and the FRANKENSTEIN CREATURE, because nobody would accept a FRANKENSTEIN CREATURE or a HYDE if they were not monstrous. On the other hand I think it’s perfectly possible to instill the essence of evil and villainy without the aid of make-up . . . you can be chillingly convincing and chillingly frightening and chillingly believable without any make-up at all. DRACULA, apart from the slightly longer teeth and the blood red contact lenses, is me . . .

What’s it like to look at yourself in the mirror when you’re made up as a creature like FRANKENSTEIN’S MONSTER – as in THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN? Does it FEEL real . . . even for a moment?

LEE: . . . It certainly SEEMS real when you’ve got make-up on … so real I can tell you I’ve felt like locking myself up in a corner. I used to lock myself away in my dressing room and only appeared on the set when people had more or less accustomed themselves to my appearance. It was very gruesome and I didn’t particularly like looking at myself in the mirror. One doesn’t like to look at anything disagreeable — particularly when it is yourself! I couldn’t eat properly because if I moved the muscles of my face, too much [of] the make-up disintegrated. I couldn’t really eat anything at all and I was in the make-up chair from 4 o’clock in the morning till about 9, and I didn’t leave the studio till 7 o’clock at night. It was very tiring . . .

Why are producers sending you unacceptable material? Has your own attitude as to what you will accept changed? Or has the actual quality of the material deteriorated?

LEE: . . . My attitudes have changed. I’m not interested, as I said to you earlier on, in the cheap exploitation picture for which I will be paid less than I ought to be paid, if one wishes to look at it in purely commercial terms, and when the people who are behind the picture will make vast profits and huge fortunes out of work that I do. Well I believe that fair is fair. So now I won’t do it for this price.

Another reason is because the producers don’t seem to be interested in coming up with intelligent, serious horror stories, which I’d have thought was not at all a very difficult thing to do. They come up with the cheap, easy exploitable package which they don’t really bother about very much. They don’t care how it is directed, or acted, as long as they can get something on the screen that can sell at a big profit. I’m not much interested in working for people like that anymore. As long as I don’t have to — for the moment, fortunately, I don’t have to. If people are expecting to see me in the same type of picture as some of the pictures I’ve done in the past I’m afraid they are going to be disappointed, because I’m no longer interested in appearing in this type of picture unless it is going to be properly made, by people who are really going to care. I’m an actor and an actor obviously isn’t able to play everything, but like any actor I want to vary the mixture as much as possible. I want to appear in as many types of pictures as I can. Now whether I get highly paid or not is beside the point. As long as the stories are REALLY good and the characters are REALLY well worth playing and one has a real sense of achievement – then it’s a challenge, not just something that you wander onto the set and do. This looks cheap, gawdy, tawdry on the screen, and it’s tatty and distasteful and . . . it makes a lot of money. Well fine, one is used as an actor because of one’s ability to make money for other people; but I’ve reached a point in my career and my age where I don’t want to go on doing this type of picture. I want to do pictures in which I as an actor, whether they be big budget or small budget pictures, will be playing the kind of part which appeals to me, that I know I can do, and which is going to advance my career, and not retard it . . .

So ends our interview with CHRISTOPHER LEE, whose closing sentiments are shared by movie audiences and Christopher Lee fans everywhere. In his indictment of modern fantasy-horror movies, Mr. Lee has expressed what many of us have felt for years — that they knew how to make good movies in the 1930s; that the audiences during those days were more mature and more demanding of quality. In these 1970s of the great damn dollar the word quality has only a vague meaning. Who is at fault? The movie companies, for foisting the ‘least’ upon us? Or us, for not DEMANDING — as LON CHANEY said, and as Christopher Lee agreed: ‘true expression of acting, true expression of feeling’? The horror movies these days, most of them, ought never to be released. They do our era an injustice.

However, producers will not change this industry, only Christopher Lee, I, and YOU can make horror movies great again.

…†…

It was interesting to hear about films from an actor’s perspective. Christopher Lee made some very valid points here, and for the most part, I think he’s spot on. But one part just doesn’t sit right with me. I must vehemently disagree with both Lee and the interviewer at the end. “They knew how to make good movies in the 1930s… audiences during those days were more mature and more demanding of quality… the horror movies these days, most of them, ought never to be released… only Christopher Lee, I, and YOU can make horror movies great again.”

I’m terribly sorry, but what a load of pompous crap.

I will never knock the horror classics of the early days. Karloff, Lugosi, Chaney, Rains… all of these actors were amazingly talented and their films were wonderful, yes. But I will also argue with my dying breath that many of the horror films of the 1960s and ’70s were JUST AS GOOD as anything that came before them. In fact, I’d argue that the biggest problem with these “newer” films wasn’t so much poorly-written scripts or careless producing, but rather the actors’ attitudes towards the films themselves.

Don’t get me wrong, Christopher Lee is incredible, he’s one of my all-time favourites, and I’ve never seen him give a bad performance, or a performance I didn’t like. But just listen to his tone throughout the interview, and especially at the end where he seems to be insinuating that he’s too good to keep doing the films that (ironically) are what made him a household name in the first place. Lee said he was now interested only in playing parts which were going to “advance my career, and not retard it”. I would certainly argue that the films which he then felt would retard his career, were the very films that MADE his career in the first place. And he admits as much throughout the interview.

Keeping in mind that this interview is from 1973, and Lee had yet to star in the Lord of the Rings films, can anyone name me a Lee movie, pre-1973, that WASN’T a Hammer-esque horror? That wasn’t a “cheap, gawdy, tawdry, tatty and distasteful” film? Likely not. What do people still know Lee best as? Count Dracula. Lee fan that I am, even I can only name one such film, and that’s “A Tale of Two Cities”, which I watched only because I was such a fan of Lee’s horror work. I found it dreadfully dry and boring.

And this is why, to me, Peter Cushing trumps Christopher Lee when it comes to being the best. Peter Cushing lived and breathed every single role he ever took on, and you never ever got the impression that he resented it. And Cushing was always appreciative that the fans loved his work — regardless of what work it was. To quote from my The Art of Fear post: “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.” And because of this attitude, he could carry ANY script! Any script at all. I don’t believe Lee could do that. Because his disdain for what he was doing seeps through into his performance just enough that it disconnects him a bit from what’s going on. You might not notice this disconnect on its own, but once you see Peter Cushing in a role, you recognize the difference immediately. Cushing proves that attitude and ability must go hand in hand. Cushing was a humble man, and he embraced why the people loved him so, and it reflects positively in all his films. It makes every performance shine in a way that Lee’s just don’t.

This is why the classic films stand the test of time as well. It’s not that the writing was any better. The scripts were just as fantastical, ridiculous and unbelievable back then: An invisible man? A monster made of human body parts stitched together? A mummy rising from the dead? A guy who goes around biting people on the neck? Still just as implausible in 1930 as it was in 1970! But the actors took pride in whatever role they acted in. They put extreme effort into bring the characters and stories to life, and that is what makes all the difference. The best script in the world will fall flat if the players bringing it to life harbour contempt for it.

I’m not blaming Lee for wanting to do something with more substance. Not for a second. As an artist myself (albeit in a different medium), I understand the longing to do what you want to do, and what you feel good about doing. And there is nothing wrong with that. Look at how choosey Heath Ledger — he’s another big favourite of mine — was when picking which films he would do. He flat out refused a number of roles which would have been very profitable at the box office. You can’t make all your decisions based on their monetary worth. I completely agree with Lee on that. But please, let’s not slam an entire generation of films and their makers (and by extension their fans) because you need an excuse for why you don’t enjoy acting in said films anymore. Perhaps it’s not so much that the material is BAD, but rather that you aren’t willing to put in the extra effort to make it good anymore.

I don’t appreciate the suggestion by the interviewer that because I prefer Hammer horror to Universal horror that I’m somehow less mature and less interested in quality. That’s just bull. Are there duds mixed in with the gems? Of course there are. You can find duds in the 1930s too, as Lon Chaney Jr. pointed out, where the films became comedies, making buffoons out of the monsters — *coughAbbottandCostelloMeetFrankensteincough* Each time period had great films and crap films. But I really believe you must look at each film individually, and not brand an entire generation or genre as one thing or another.

Emmert Wolf said, “A man is only as good as his tools.” But I’ll tell you a little secret. A man with true talent isn’t limited by the tools he uses. True talent makes whatever tools are available work for him. More talented is the man who creates a masterpiece with very little, than the man who does the same with the entire world at his fingertips.

Until next time, unpleasant dreams . . .

^..^

I’m Vincent Price, and you’re invited to my party in the House on Haunted Hill.

Whoa! A party at Vincent Price’s house?! I’m in!

Where so far, the ghosts have murdered only seven people. So won’t you come and make it… eight?

Heck yeah! Er, no, wait, WHAT?! O_O

Hello, darlings. It’s that time of the year again already! I’ve got my imaginary Elvira costume on as I sit down to write about my FAVOURITE movie ever — “House on Haunted Hill”.

“What’s your favourite movie?” It’s probably one of the most common questions you can be asked. But perhaps a better question is WHY is a particular movie your favourite. Sometimes there are clear-cut reasons why we enjoy something. But there are also times when you can’t quite put your finger on exactly what it is that appeals to you.

So when I sat down last week to rewatch this incredibly spooky William Castle production, I tried to pay very close attention to why I was enjoying it so much.

“House on Haunted Hill” has a lot going for it. First and foremost, it stars Vincent Price, one of the greatest actors to ever grace the silver screen. Price plays eccentric millionaire Frederick Loren, whose devilish scheming wife, Annabelle, has asked him to throw a party. “A haunted house party. Hmm. She’s so amusing.”

Carol Ohmart stars as the beautiful but dangerous Annabelle Loren

The first scene between Annabelle and Frederick is delightful. They spitefully banter about the time she tried to kill him. “Something you ate, the doctor said.” “Yes, arsenic on the rocks.”

As Frederick, Price is smug and pompous, arrogant and sly. And only Vincent Price could look so sincere and sinister at the same time. You really don’t know if you can trust him or not. With just the raise of an eyebrow, his face absolutely transforms from innocent to guilty as sin. Price purrs his way through the script, looking absolutely immaculate in his suit and that wonderfully villainous moustache.

But it’s not just Vincent Price that makes this film so special. No, I think what it has going for it more than anything else is atmosphere. The elaborate set, the characters/actors, the music and sound/special effects — all of it works together brilliantly to create a scary and gloomy atmosphere that pervades every single scene. It hangs from the darkest cobwebbed doorways of the house and lurks around every corner.

“House on Haunted Hill” was a movie with a very simple plot: Five guests are offered $10,000 each if they can spend (and survive) the entire night locked in a house which is supposedly haunted by the ghosts of seven murder victims. Not a whole lot happens in this film, but every second of it is chilling.

The (un)lucky guests: Lance Schroeder (Richard Long), Watson Pritchard (Elisha Cook), Nora Manning (Carolyn Craig), Dr. David Trent (Alan Marshal), and Ruth Bridgers (Julie Mitchum)

From the opening scene where Vincent Price’s disembodied head invites us in, to the famous floating skeleton at the end, it’s pure unadulterated suspense. This is a psychological thriller more than it is a straight-up horror flick, and what sets it apart from other films is how all this subtlety can lead to such big climactic scares.

“House on Haunted Hill” isn’t just a movie, it’s an experience. The film boasts a deliciously haunting musical score composed and conducted by Von Dexter. The music is perfectly suited to every scene. You get moments of silence, then a spooky melody builds to a climax, and there are of course screams galore. It’s so quiet at times that an unexpected scare can really make you jump. There’s really not a whole lot of “action” in this film. It’s a house full of people running around accusing each other of murder and plotting and hiding out in their rooms. But this treatment of music and silence does its job of holding the viewer is the grips of anticipation and suspense.

Leona Anderson as Mrs. Slydes and Carolyn Craig as Nora Manning in one of the film’s most startling scenes

Producer/director William Castle, who would go on to produce the famous “Rosemary’s Baby”, really outdid himself when it came to screenings of “House on Haunted Hill”. For the film, he created the “Emergo” — a skeleton attached to a pulley system that could be flown out above the audience in the theatre.

The audience responds to William Castle’s “Emergo” during a screening of “House On Haunted Hill”

The film is SO good at keeping your undivided attention that I can well imagine jumping out of my seat if a skeleton suddenly flew out from the screen!

William Castle and Leona Anderson (Mrs. Slydes) on set

There are so many spooky little touches that make “House on Haunted Hill” so delightful. The attention to detail is marvelous. Case in point: The party favours. Frederick reveals loaded guns in little coffin-shaped boxes.

A lot of people knock the special effects of classic Hollywood, but there are some exceptionally scary ones in this film. My favourite is a ghostly Annabelle who comes to Nora’s window and dispatches a phantom rope which creeps slowly across the floor and around the poor girl’s ankles. And somehow it’s even creepier when the tape is played in reverse to show the rope retracting back out the window as Annabelle disappears into the night.

Another special effect triumph is the decapitated head that Nora finds in her suitcase. As far as props in 1959 go, this is pretty gruesome!

Throughout the film, Carolyn Craig’s (Nora) facial expressions run the gamut, from apprehensive, to frightened, to sweaty palms, to full-on terrified out of her mind, as is illustrated in this spooky scene with a monster’s hand.

As I mentioned earlier, there is a lot of screaming done in this film. Nora is as skittish as Frankenstein’s monster around fire, and creeping through the house alone with her loaded gun, she’s just as dangerous too. Which is the point, really.

See, for a film with such an easy-sounding plot, it’s really anything but simple. Some crafty minds have been at work here. The double twist ending is like eating a box of your favourite cereal only to discover that there’s a toy inside that you didn’t expect. You’d have eaten the cereal anyway because it’s so good, but the surprise toy just makes your mouth drop open in delight.

As it turns out, this has all been a very elaborate plan set in motion by Annabelle and Dr. Trent, who are secretly having an affair. They staged the entire evening: the scary gags, the parlour tricks — like the player piano and that severed head in Nora’s suitcase — Annabelle’s hanging, Nora being attacked in the cellar. Everything they’ve done has led up to one thing — Nora, in a frightened, panicked state, killing Frederick. Which will leave Annabelle and David with all of his money.

Well, I hate to burst your treacherous little bubble, Annabelle, but that’s the diabolical Vincent Price you’re married to, and the double-crossers are about to get double-crossed.

Sorry, I’m about to get all fangirly here, but this is one of THE best endings to a film.

Nora is overcome with fear and does indeed shoot Frederick. Hearing the shot, Annabelle makes her way to the basement to meet up with David and to gloat over her newly-dead husband’s body. Rarely has a squeaking door been so dang scary as when it slowly closes behind Annabelle as she enters the basement. You know the only thing that could be scarier? TWO squeaking doors sealing her in. Oh, and because this is the best movie EVER? There’s a THIRD squeaking door. Thank you, Mr. Castle. A thousand times, thank you.

Annabelle calls out, but she appears to be alone. She walks slowly towards the open vat of acid in the floor. Why is there a vat of dangerous, flesh-eating acid in the basement? It’s Vincent Price’s house. Why WOULDN’T there be an open vat of flesh-eating acid? Duh.

As Annabelle peers into the acid, the following awesomeness happens. I pity the younger generation who grew up with expensive, overdone CGI. Who the hell needs it?

Yes, our first glimpse of the real star of “House on Haunted Hill”– the Skeleton! He even gets his own line in the credits, which just tickles me for some reason.

As the skeleton stalks Annabelle, Price’s unmistakeable voice rings out. “At last you’ve got it all. Everything I have. Even my life. But you’re not going to live to enjoy it. Come with me, murderess. Come with me.”

Mr. Bones slowly backs a screaming Annabelle towards the acid vat. And then…

Oops. She just slipped, I swear. I was only asking for her number, I tell you!

And then SURPRISE! It was Frederick all along! He’s not dead after all! Nora’s gun was loaded with blanks.

He already knew of Annabelle’s plot to murder him and he outfoxed everyone. Here Price delivers my favourite bit of dialogue from the entire film.

Good night, doctor. Good night, Annabelle. The crime you two planned was indeed perfect. Only the victim is alive and the murderers are not.

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

Gives me chills every time. Whenever this episode ends, I always have a body covered in goosebumps and a huge grin on my face. It’s scary, it’s suspenseful, and it’s a hell of a lot of fun. I guess you could even call this Robb White-penned story… Priceless. ;D

So whaddaya say? Who’s up for spending the night in the house on Haunted Hill? A night of thrills and chills, screams and bad dreams? Blood drops and scary props? I don’t know about you, but it sounds like a killer time to me.

Until next time, unpleasant dreams . . .

^..^

The ghosts are waiting, so won’t you join me in the House on Haunted Hill? Hurry, or you’ll be late for your own funeral.

The 3 types of terror: The Gross-out, The Horror, and the last and worse one: Terror, when you come home and notice everything you own had been taken away and replaced by an exact substitute. It’s when the lights go out and you feel something behind you, you hear it, you feel its breath against your ear, but when you turn around, there’s nothing there…

~ Stephen King

Happy Halloween, darlings!

You know what I could go for right now? Right this minute? Yes, yes, of course it’s a scary movie. But not just any scary movie. I don’t want to see Frankenstein’s monster or Dracula’s fangs. At this point, the thought of a lumbering Mummy or a howling Wolfman is inducing nothing more than a few yawns.

I don’t want anything classic or black and white. And nothing typical. I want unusual. Creepy. Campy. Cult. With a nice balance of blood, fear, suspense and surprise. And lots of glorious colour!

It’s not that I don’t normally like all those old-time monster movies. I do! But this Halloween, I just feel like something else.

It’s a tall order to find what I’m craving. But fortunately, I’m a bit of an amateur expert on films that just so happen to fill this bill. I mean, when I say I DON’T like a horror film? It’s been suggested that it must have been “insufficiently trashy”. And I do have a penchant for certain, er, “questionable” films like “Chopper Chicks in Zombietown“, “Werewolves on Wheels” and “The Confessional“. But pfft. Whatever. What do YOU know, pal? ;)

Anyone who’s read last year’s Halloween posts, “The Art of Fear” and “Dracula: The Hammer Years: Boobs, Blood & Bondage“, knows what an unabashed fan I am of the British masters of horror, Hammer Films.

I’m sure everyone has seen a Hammer film at some time in their life. But I’m willing to bet that some of the films you attribute to Hammer, actually aren’t.

Also producing those deliciously diabolical technicolour thrillers during the 1960s and ’70s was the lesser-known but no less talented Amicus Productions. It’s very easy to mistake the two, as their films were incredibly similar, both in visual stylings and in subject matter. Further adding to movie misattributions? British stars synonymous with horror such as Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee and Ingrid Pitt can be found spooking and scaring in films produced by both companies.

Both Hammer and Amicus put out some killer (pun definitely intended!) content, though. So why isn’t the Amicus name as well-known as Hammer? The most obvious explanation is simply lack of output. Amicus has a very modest filmography. Between 1960 and 1977, Amicus Productions produced only 30 films.* By contrast, Hammer’s productivity was much more prolific, racking up nearly a hundred films in the same 17-year period.

While Amicus began its life in 1960, Hammer had been around since the 1930s. The birth of Hammer in the horror genre was in 1955 with “The Quatermass Xperiment”, an adaptation of a television sci-fi serial. In 1957 came “The Curse of Frankenstein” (the film credited with resurrecting the horror genre), and Hammer consistently turned out what would become some of the best horror films of the ’60s and ’70s.

So for Halloween, I’ve selected 5 of what I consider to be the best mid-century horror films: Two from Hammer, two from Amicus, and one of THE scariest films I’ve ever seen. It’s by neither company, but it’s a great example of a film that LOOKS like a Hammer yet isn’t. And for once, I’m not going to give away the endings. You’ll have to watch each film and see for yourself. Mwahahahahaha!

Tonight is the perfect time to curl up on the couch with a slice of pizza and a blanket. So what if there are droves of snot-nosed, costumed children banging on your door panhandling for candy. Pft. Whatever. You paid for the candy, so you should just eat it yourself. If you ignore them, I’m sure they’ll go away.

So bolt the door, pull down the shades, and turn out the lights. Because now the screaming starts.

… † …

“The Devil Rides Out “

Hammer Films, 1968

Released in the US under the alternate title “The Devil’s Bride”, “The Devil Rides Out” is not only my favourite Hammer film (and arguably their best), it’s also one of my favourite movies, period.

It stars Christopher Lee as the film’s protagonist, Nicholas, the Duc de Richleau — a rare “good guy” role for Lee, who we all know much better as the blood-sucking Count Dracula in seven of Hammer’s Dracula films.

Nicholas and Rex Van Ryn (Leon Greene) are concerned about their young friend Simon (Patrick Mower). He’s become distant, and when he misses a meeting with them, they show up at his door. They arrive to a house full of people, and Simon is surprised and not exactly pleased to see them. He claims it’s a meeting of his astronomical society, but things are not all they appear to be. Nicholas is immediately suspicious and discovers that Simon is about to be baptised into a group of devil worshippers.

Simon and his friend Tanith Carlisle are saved by the Duc and Rex, but the evil Satanic cult leader, Mocata (Charles Gray), who preys on their fears and weaknesses, is determined to get them back.

A personal Hammer favourite of Christopher Lee’s, the screenplay was written by TZ veteran Richard Matheson, directed by Terrence Fisher, and is an adaptation of a novel by Dennis Wheatley. The film adopts a much more serious approach to the occult than other similar films of the time, and I love the blatant Christian overtones.

With the help of Nicholas’s niece and her husband, can Simon’s and Tanith’s souls be saved? Will they be lost to the devil forever? Or will they all become victims of Mocata, the Goat of Mendes, and the Angel of Death?

… † …

“The Plague of the Zombies”

Hammer Films, 1966

1966 was a great year. “Dark Shadows” premiered, as did my beloved Adam West “Batman” series, and the original “Star Trek”. My best friend was born, and The Lovin’ Spoonful’s “Summer in the City” was on the radio.

It was also a great year for films. On January 9, 1966, Hammer Films released two of their best films: “Dracula, Prince of Darkness”, and another favourite of mine, “The Plague of the Zombies”.

This isn’t your typical zombie film as you’ll see as it progresses. And while I’m a big fan, I do wish the script had allowed for a few more frights. But as far as how the zombies look? “The Walking Dead” walkers have nothing on these frightening white-eyed corpses. If there were ever a zombie that could scare me? It’d be one of these guys.

Dr. Peter Tompson (Brook Williams) is at his wits end. A mysterious plague is sweeping through his village, leaving a string of dead bodies in its wake. But with the villagers refusing him permission to perform autopsies, he has no idea what’s causing the deaths. Frustrated, he writes to his friend and former teacher, Sir James Forbes (Andre Morell — Doctor Watson in Hammer’s “Hound of the Baskervilles”). Sir James and his daughter, Sylvia (Diane Clare), arrive in the superstitious Cornish town in the midst of a funeral. When the coffin is accidentally dropped, the two catch a shocking glimpse of the corpse inside.

Eager for answers, Sir James and Dr. Tompson promptly set out to rob the grave of the newly-dead man. They get caught by the police, but not before they open the coffin and find it… empty.

Meanwhile, Sylvia, has just witnessed her friend Alice’s (Jacqueline Pearce) murder. She followed Alice to an old tin mine, abandoned after a string of bad luck, accidents, and deaths. The villagers believe it to be haunted. She recognizes the man who kills Alice… it’s the man from the coffin.

Black magic, voodoo dolls in little coffins, human blood, bringing the dead back to life. Someone in the village is practicing witchcraft. But who, and to what end? And what’s really going on at the haunted mine? Perhaps it isn’t quite so abandoned after all.

The film boasts an impressively scary graveyard rising scene. Hands and bodies emerging from mounds of earth, white-eyed, open-mouthed and lumbering around menacingly. I wish there was more of that here, but the film has a good plot, plenty of atmosphere, and as usual, Hammer has some really great visual appeal.

… † …

“Horror Express”

Benmar Productions and Granada Films, 1972

This is by far one of the scariest films I’ve ever seen. It has great pops of surprise woven into the subtly scary atmosphere. Starring both Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing, this is a film that at first glance might scream “Hammer”. But it’s not.

Also known by the title, “Panic in the Trans-Siberian Train”, the two production companies responsible for this cinematic scare-fest are Benmar Productions and Granada Films.

Twilight Zone fans will recognize Terry Savalas (Captain Kazan) from the classic episode “Living Doll”, where his character Erich Streator meets a grisly end at the hands of, yes, a creepy doll.

Aboard the Trans-Siberian train is Professor Alexander Saxton (Lee). He’s returning home from an expedition in the Himalayas. But he’s not alone. He believes he’s found the “Missing Link” — a frozen ape-like caveman creature which he has stowed away in a crate. But something frightening is happening aboard this train of terror. People are being murdered, and all the corpses are discovered bleeding from the eyes — eyes which have turned completely white.

It’s soon discovered that Saxton’s creature has come to life. I don’t need some fancy CGI freak show monster to scare me. Not when we have this terrifying red-eyed, primitive ape-creature running around a spooky train in the night, draining people of all their knowledge and memories.

Oh, and if that’s not scary enough for you? The creature can also transfer its life force into other people, turning THEM into red-eyed, blood-thirsty monsters.

Can Saxton and his colleague Dr. Wells (Peter Cushing) stop the creature before it kills everyone on the train and escapes back into the world? This is 90 minutes of frightening suspense, and one of my absolute favourite films.

… † …

“And Now the Screaming Starts”

Amicus Productions, 1973

Now this is a great period piece. It stars my favourite, Peter Cushing (Dr. Pope), and Stephanie Beacham (Catherine Fengriffen) — a fantastic actress who played opposite Cushing and Christopher Lee in the film “Dracula A.D. 1972” as Cushing’s granddaughter, Jessica Van Helsing. She’s also the star of the aforementioned D-grade film “The Confessional”.

The year is 1795, and young Catherine (Beacham) becomes the victim of rape on her wedding night. The perpetrator, however, is no ordinary man. He’s a ghost. And a very creepy one. She’s haunted by this ghostly specter, who has no eyes and is missing a hand. The Addams Family showed us that a disembodied hand running around can be quite fun. But the one in this film is anything but benevolent. As the movie tagline says, “The dead hand that crawls, kills and lives!!!” With three exclamation points, you know they mean business.

When it’s discovered that she’s pregnant, the news brings a kind of widespread dread to the house and any associates of the family. Her husband, Charles Fengriffen, (Ian Ogilvy) is keeping a deep, dark secret from her. A secret that means death for anyone who tries to warn her of it.

Just who is the mysterious woodsman, Silas, who lives on the grounds and comes lurking around the house? A man who sports the very same tell-tale birthmark on his face as the ghost who pursues Catherine. What is his connection to Charles’s grandfather, Henry Fengriffen (Herbert Lom), a debaucherous and cruel man, who seems to be the origin of this family legend? Who is the father of Catherine’s baby, and what will this mysterious curse mean for the Fengriffens?

This is Amicus at its best. The film is suspenseful, not overly gory or graphic, and the story holds your attention remarkably well for its entire 90 minute running time, despite the fact that we don’t learn what the legend is until the film is nearly over.

… † …

  “The House That Dripped Blood”

Amicus Productions, 1971

Amicus produced a number of portmanteau films, including the star-studded “The House That Dripped Blood”. This type of film is made up of a number of short stories, all of them tied together by a major overlying plot. The major plot point in this film is a haunted house. Each story segment tells the tale of the different occupants the house has had, and the crimes committed there. Scotland Yard inspector Holloway (John Bennett) and police sergeant Martin (John Malcolm) provide the film’s narrative, discussing the strange happenings of this peculiar house. Eventually they’re joined by the house’s relator, the aptly named Mr. Stoker (John Bryans).

In the first segment, “Method for Murder”, Charles Hillyer (Denholm Elliott) is a writer of horror. Murder, to be exact. Gruesome, bloody murder. To cure his writer’s block, Charles and his wife Alice (Joanna Dunham) move into a large mansion in the country. Immediately, Charles is inspired to write a new story. The villain is Dominick: an escaped asylum patient whose preferred method of murder is strangling. The more Charles writes, the more real Dominick becomes. Until finally, he begins actually SEEING his character roaming around the house and grounds. And then one night he sees Dominick strangling Alice. He runs to her rescue only to be told that it was he himself who was choking her.

His psychiatrist, Dr. Andrews, tells him that an author’s characters are an extension of his own personality. And he believes that Dominick is simply a way to express negative feelings that Charles has repressed. But everyone, the doctor included, is about to find out how real Dominick truly is. This story has a delightfully diabolical twist at the end that you don’t want to miss.

Peter Cushing stars in the second segment, “Waxworks”, as the house’s newest tenant, reclusive retired stockbroker Philip Grayson. While not married, he does carry a photograph of a beautiful woman he once loved. One day Grayson wanders into “Jacqueline’s House of Horrors” wax museum, and is startled by the resemblance of one of the figures to his lost love. The creepy curator (Wolfe Morris) explains that the figure of Salome was modelled after his wife. He goes on to tell Grayson a gruesome tale: that his wife, like the figure she’s portraying, was a murderess.

When Grayson’s old friend Neville Rogers (Joss Ackland) comes to visit, Neville insists they tour the wax museum. As it so happens, he too was in love with this mystery woman, and is drawn to her likeness. So much so, that he can’t leave town. Grayson rushes to the wax museum to save his friend, but is horrified by what he finds. How are these wax figures so realistic? We’re about to find out.

Christopher Lee plays John Reid in segment 3, “Sweets to the Sweet”. He is a rather cold, disinterested father to Jane (Chloe Franks), his young daughter. At least he seems to be. As soon as they move into the house, John hires a governess for Jane — Ann Norton (Nyree Dawn Porter). Ann soon realizes that Jane is a very lonely girl. No playmates, no toys. She buys Jane a doll, but John immediately takes it away. He insists that it’s for Jane’s own good, and that she’s not all she appears to be. And he’s right.

When Ann discovers Jane has been secretly reading about witchcraft, we all begin to see that she is anything but ordinary. Just what dangerous secret is John keeping about his daughter? The casting for this story is superb. Chloe Franks is the sweetest looking little girl imaginable. Considering there are few things more frightening than evil masquerading as innocence, she’s perfect in the role.

In the fourth and final segment, “The Cloak”, horror movie stars Paul Henderson (Jon Pertwee) and Carla Lind (the gorgeous Ingrid Pitt) are filming a movie, “Curse of the Bloodsuckers”. Frustrated by his wardrobe’s lack of vampiric authenticity, he buys an old cloak from a curious little costume shop, and the proprietor is only too anxious to be rid of it. Paul soon discovers that the cloak has certain… properties. When he puts it on, his reflection can’t be seen in a mirror. And during a scene, he’s so overcome by the cloak’s influence that he actually bites Carla. Then he grows fangs and levitates!

When Paul reads in the paper that the costume shop has burned down and in the cellar, the police discovered a coffin with a well-preserved yet very old body inside, he deduces that his cloak belonged to an actual vampire. But Carla has a secret of her own. What will happen when Carla takes the cloak and puts it on herself?

This story has a great little tongue-in-cheek poke at Hammer and Lee. While lamenting the cheap-looking set of his movie, Paul quips, “That’s what’s wrong with your present day horror films. There’s no realism. Not like the old ones, no. Great ones: Frankenstein, Phantom of the Opera. Dracula. The one with Bela Lugosi, of course, not this new fella.”

Back at the police station, Stoker warns the inspector to stay away from the accursed and once again vacant house, but his curiosity piqued, he goes anyway. What horrors await the inspector? If only the walls of this house could talk. Then again, maybe they can. And maybe, just maybe, he’s not alone…

*****

Just what is the appeal of Horror? In books or on film? Why do we enjoy being scared like this? I suppose we don’t really NEED a reason to like something. Whatever the case, I think deep down we all like the feeling of hairs standing on end. The mystery that comes from the unknown. Alfred Hitchcock said, “There is no terror in the bang, only in the anticipation of it.” And he was right. The thrill comes not from the scare itself. It comes from knowing there will be a scare, but not knowing when. These films prove that you don’t need a lot of violence and gore to thrill and chill. What you need is something that’s enough of a departure to spark your imagination, but that’s rooted deeply enough in reality to truly scare you.

That’s the recipe for a perfect horror film.

Happy Halloween, darlings. Until next time, unpleasant dreams . . .

^..^

The shortest horror story: The last man on Earth sat alone in a room. There was a knock on the door.

~ Frederic Brown

*The first Amicus film predates the name “Amicus” itself. Amicus Productions was founded by American Milton Subotsky (with his US based partner, Max J. Rosenberg) and in 1960, Subotsky produced “Horror Hotel” aka “City of the Dead”. This was before he settled on the name Amicus and the film is credited to Vulcan Films.

I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

Jesus answered, “Don’t you know me, Phillip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.

~ John 14:6-10

The Jews gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ (Messiah), tell us plainly.”

Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”

Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

“We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.

~ John 10:24-34

I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name — the name you gave me – so that they may be one as we are one.

~ John 17:11

Father: Truth, Spirit: Love, Son: The Form of God

Note: Image is a detail of a mosaic icon of Christ in Hagia Sophia, Constantinople

The director filmed a different scene than the one that was in the script. Robin Hughes, as the prisoner, was supposed to make a wild escape from the castle and the camera was supposed to catch a glimpse of a cloven hoof jumping over the wall. That was to suggest the prisoner was the Devil himself. There was some argument about it, and they spent considerable time making the Devil more traditional than myth. But the film turned out nicely and few people suspect the difference.

That’s the recollection of actor H.M. Wynant, who played the weary traveller, David Ellington, in my favourite Twilight Zone episode “The Howling Man“, which first aired 54 years ago today.

There was much debate about the episode’s famous Devil scene. In writer Charles Beaumont’s original short story, we don’t get any description of the devil as he makes his escape. Ellington and the Howling Man escape the monastery together, but when Ellington grows increasingly ill, loses pace and cries out for help, the Devil replies, “Help you?” He laughed once, a high-pitched sound more awful than the screams had been; and then he turned and vanished in the moonless night.” The reason there’s no description is because unlike the episode, in the original, Ellington doesn’t know for sure whether his visit to the Hermitage even happened or if it was all a delusion.

When Beaumont adapted his short story for the Twilight Zone, he had a very specific “reveal” in mind. I came across this fantastic old document in Stewart T. Stanyard’s book, “Dimensions Behind The Twilight Zone”.

It’s a letter from Charles Beaumont to Rod Serling and others involved in the episode’s development. It seems that he was asked to incorporate some changes — many of which he did — but one that he tried to stick to his guns on was the Devil’s transformation. Said Beaumont:

I have retained the original method of discovering the Prisoner’s cloven hoof. I tried it Doug’s way, but either I don’t see it or I am right in believing my this way better. The “Help me!” — “Help you!” dialogue, the scramble up the wall, the sulphurous figure of the prisoner etched against the night as he stands atop the wall and then vanishes in smoke… all this strikes me as wonderful stuff. The cloven hoof coming down on Ellington’s laced hands is, of course, Rod’s idea, but I’ll fight for it anyway.

The “Doug” he’s referring to is director Douglas Heyes. It was his idea to nix the subtle mystery of the cloven hoof and go right for a wham-bam-thank-you-ma’ma “Oh, my God, he’s the Devil!” reveal.

And there’s no denying that the reveal scene in the final cut of the episode is impressive and highly effective. While I can appreciate the approach Beaumont wanted to take, I’ll admit that I enjoy Heyes’ interpretation a heck of a lot more. Robin Hughes was absolute perfection in the role, and watching him transform step-by-step into the Devil is an image that was seared into my mind many, many years ago.

So where did Heyes get his inspiration for this clever moving transformation? Heyes explains in Martin Grams’s book, “The Twilight Zone: Unlocking the Door to a Television Classic”:

“When I was a young kid I was very influenced by films like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1932). I loved Frankenstein (1931) and Dracula (1931). One that influenced me on ‘Howling Man’ was the Werewolf of London (1935), with Henry Hull. In that, he did a slow, moving transition into the werewolf, which I had never seen before. He was walking up a staircase, and as he would move behind pieces of the set, he would come out from behind the next piece of set looking slightly more advanced in his transformation. I’d seen that as a kid, and I always said, “That’s the way to do it.”

– “Werewolf of London” (1935) The transformation scene is the first 10 seconds of the video. You can definitely see the similarity between this and Heyes’ work in “The Howling Man”

“I had [the Devil] walking very fast down a corridor in the old monastery,” continued Heyes. “The cameras were on the outside of the columns and arches along the corridor, and I had him make the entire walk at the same dolly speed every time there was a makeup change. In editing, we could cut from one makeup change to the next in the middle part of each column, where it would be dark. At the end of the corridor he went out the window with a big puff of smoke.”

– “The Howling Man” transformation scene

I still get chills every time I see that. This will be my fourth Howling Man post, and I can well imagine I’ll do another one next year. It’s just so good that I’ll never stop talking about it.

There were many conflicting ideas when it came to “The Howling Man”, but obviously it’s because everyone involved was so passionate about it. And why not? As Ellington says, it’s an “incredible story”, one that pokes at your mind and leaves you with a very uneasy feeling.

And that’s what The Twilight Zone was about. Pushing the boundaries and breaking some rules in the name of awareness. It was always about the greater good. Charles Beaumont may not have been happy with the end result in this case, but I can’t imagine a better outcome for my favourite episode. The devil is in the details, and for me, all is as it should be.

Last week I set out to write an important letter to a friend. A “real” letter. Handwritten, not typed. I hate that this necessary skill is sadly becoming a thing of the past. So I for one like to write a good old-fashioned letter once in a while to keep my award-winning penmanship skills in tip-top condition.

I wanted some lined paper, but not the cheap school-grade three-ringed stuff.

Like myself, my Mom was very organized. She had tons of notebooks filled with finances, schedules and even what we each got for Christmas! (Because knowing that will come in handy SOME day, I’m sure…)

I remembered that she had always used these large pads of heavy lined paper — just the sort I was looking for. I went looking for one of her old pads of paper, and when I found it, I was pleasantly surprised to find something un-business-related written in her hand. A Google search revealed (as I suspected) that they are not her personal words, but the sentiment is still worth sharing, I think.

***

God said…

Don’t look to the bigness of your need, look to the bigness of your God. Your circumstances are hindrances to seeing MY ABILITIES.

If you keep your eyes on your circumstances, the devil will use your circumstances to defeat you, and accuse the Word of God… the written and living WORD.

YOUR VICTORY is in keeping your eyes on the bigness of your GOD and HIS ABILITY.

HE HAS PROMISED to take you step by step by step, not all at once…

But step…

by step and…

Each step will be a MIRACLE.

***

Thanks, Mom. Leave it to you to know just what I need, when I need it. And to somehow provide it even when you’re not here.

“Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before Him He endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.”

~ Hebrews 12:1-2

 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us.

~ John 1:1 and 1:14

The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord”, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

~ Romans 10:8-11

Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

‘You are not yet fifty years old’, the Jews said to him, ‘and you have seen Abraham!’

“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!

~ John 8:56

Note: The portrait of Jesus is by Peter V. Bianchi. The second painting is Gebhard Fugel’s “The Ascension of Christ” (1893).

I HAVE endeavoured in this Ghostly little book, to raise the Ghost of an Idea, which shall not put my readers out of humour with themselves, with each other, with the season, or with me. May it haunt their houses pleasantly, and no one wish to lay it.

I love Christmas.

To anyone who knows me, that’s probably the understatement of 2014. But I do. First and foremost, it’s a celebration of my Lord Jesus. And I like the pretty decorations and friendly attitude that most people are willing to adopt this time of year. People can yap off about consumerism and the like, but if your disdain for early décor, gifts and spirit make you enjoy Christmas less? Then I think maybe you’re just a Scrooge who doesn’t understand why Christmas is special. Time to stop letting other people rain on your parade. Take the good, leave the bad. End of story.

A lot of people have a Christmas tradition. Mine is watching “A Christmas Carol” on Christmas Eve. Now, I don’t always manage to see it on December 24th, but give or take a couple of days in either direction and I’m satisfied.

Charles Dickens’s holiday masterpiece was first published on December 19, 1843. It’s a beautiful tale of love, kindness and redemption. I’ll admit, it took me a long time to finally read this book. In fact, I picked it up for the very first time only about 5 years ago. Like most people, I’ve seen a number of film incarnations, and I was surprised by the length of the original story. Not long by Dickens’s standards, to be sure! Still, a 90-minute film can’t illustrate the entire book. But it’s a beautiful narration on life, no matter how you’re exposed to it.

“Marley’s Ghost” by John Leech, 1843

My preferred version of “A Christmas Carol” is the superb Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer film from 1938, starring actor Reginald Owen as the crotchety old miser, Ebenezer Scrooge. Did I say “preferred”? Sorry, what I actually meant is that this is the only version worth watching. EVER. I have never liked the 1951 movie with Alastair Sim. If it’s your favourite? Well… okay. I guess there’s no accounting for some people’s lack of taste. ;P No, but honestly, I don’t like it. I found his over-acting to be terribly obnoxious and I also didn’t enjoy the choice of scenes when compared to the 1938 version. As I said, the original story turned out to be longer than I ever realized from watching the films. There’s much more to “A Christmas Carol” than can be crammed into a single 90 minutes, so each film has to pick and choose which scenes to include and which to leave out. The 1951 film has the bedroom scene, where everyone is snatching up Scrooge’s belongings as he lies stiff and cold in his bed. It’s really rather boring. It’s missing from MGM’s film, where they focused on scenes that give the film a very different, much less dreary feeling.

The casting couldn’t be more perfect. Reginald Owen IS Scrooge, from the first scene to the last. He was 51 at the time he took on this iconic character.

Originally, Lionel Barrymore was cast as the lead. He’d been playing Scrooge on the radio for years and MGM wanted to cash in on the show’s popularity. There had been a number of silent films, but this was the first sound movie version of “A Christmas Carol” made in America. (The first-ever sound version of Dickens’s tale was the 1935 British film “Scrooge” starring Seymour Hicks in the title role.) But just before shooting started, Barrymore took a bad fall on the set of another film he was making, aggravating an old leg and hip injury. Doctors said there was no telling when or if he’d ever walk again. MGM was out their famous Scrooge.

In the 1930s, listening to Lionel Barrymore’s Scrooge on the radio was a Christmas tradition for many.

The studio had sunk a significant amount of money into the film and the sets had already been built, so they asked Barrymore’s advice on who he thought should replace him. He picked Reginald Owen, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Real-life husband and wife Gene and Kathleen Lockhart are a pure delight as Bob and Mrs. Crachit. Just look at this picture — those smiles are so beautifully genuine.

Kathleen and Gene Lockhart

And in her film debut, their real-life daughter, June Lockhart, plays the Cratchit’s middle daughter, Belinda!

L-R: June Lockhart (who looks just like her dad!), Gene Lockhart, Kathleen Lockhart, and Terry Kilburn

Ann Rutherford brings to glittery life The Spirit of Christmas Past.

She’s so kind and ethereal, but when Scrooge’s softening heart becomes hard again, she quickly stiffens and coldly goads him.

My time grows short. I have yet to show you the black years of your life. Your gradual enslavement to greed. Your ruthlessness. Your ingratitude. Your wretched thirst for gold!

I always liked how they let her get a little angry at him. Because really, at this point who wouldn’t love to slap some sense into the man?

Lionel Braham makes a wonderfully loud, wide-eyed, larger-than-life Spirit of Christmas Present.

But for me, it’s D’Arcy Corrigan’s Spirit of Christmas Future that’s so special.

This is the scene that I remember from when I was only about 4 years old. It’s haunted my dreams (in a good way!) for more than 20 years. Scrooge on the craggy rocks with this unbelievably frightening grim reaper ghost beckoning him to follow. It made such an impression on me that this has become one of my favourite films of all time. In short, the scene scared me half to death and I loved every second of it.

For many people, I think the Christmas Spirits are the heart and soul of “A Christmas Carol”. But not for me. My favourite thing about this film is how much time they devote to the very much in love couple, Fred and Bess.

Fred is Scrooge’s nephew, son of his beloved sister Fan. He’s played brilliantly by Barry MacKay, who is the picture of a young, dapper gentleman.

MacKay is eloquent, charming and his performance is very compelling. Take this speech he delivers with such conviction to Scrooge about the good of Christmas:

Uncle, there are many things which have made me happy. Things which have never fattened my purse by even that much. [he flicks his fingers] Christmas is one of these. I’ve always looked on Christmas as a good time, a kind, charitable, forgiving, pleasant time. It’s the only time when people open their hearts freely. The only time when men and women seem to realize that all human beings are really members of the same family. And that being members of the same family, they owe each other some measure of warmth and solace. And therefore, Uncle, though it’s never put a scrap of gold or silver in my pockets, I believe that it has done me good, and will do me good. And I say, God bless it!

To which dear old Bob Cratchit, bless his heart, starts applauding, while the most heart-warming, infectious smile you can imagine spreads across his face. See? I just watched that scene to transcribe the quote and I’m already all teary-eyed!

One of my favourite pictures in the history of mankind. And omigosh-look-their-hands-are-touching! *swoon*

Playing Fred’s fiancée Bess is Lynne Carver. The two have unmistakeable chemistry. Whether they’re sliding in front of the church, or singing inside it, they are the perfect illustration of true love.

This scene in the church has me in tears immediately. They’re just so incredibly sweet together. I mean, whispering behind the hymn book in the middle of “O, Come All Ye Faithful”? Is it any wonder that a hopeless romantic like me breaks down in tears every time?

Even though I can be found blubbering before the opening credits have even finished, it’s this church scene that is truly the most magical part of the film. The shot shifts from Fred and Bess to Bob Cratchit and Tiny Tim.

I can’t sufficiently describe Gene Lockhart’s performance. There are no words for it. The love Bob has for his son just pours out of him as they sing together. And I love how MGM wrapped the scene by ending with a full shot of the congregation as the carol comes to a close.

And as the last notes of the “Amen” play, and the scene fades to black… I’m done. I’m just done. Sobbing, bawling, wondering how the hell a single human body can produce so many tears in such a short period of time… *wipes cheek, sighs*

In my opinion, what makes this film better than any other is the focus on love. When you strip it down to bare bones, Dickens’s tale is one of love for your fellow man, forgiveness and redemption. And MGM in 1938, moreso than any other, cherry-picked the best portions of “A Christmas Carol” to illustrate this message with the greatest impact. And the way they adapted Dickens’s words into the script is remarkable.

If you’ve never seen this film, please, PLEASE find a copy and watch it this year. I promise you won’t be disappointed. And the DVD is only $5 from Amazon! It’s even available on Blu-ray now. It’s an old film, but the quality is amazing and the content is superb. Even the special effects with Bob Marley’s ghost are nothing to sneeze at!

Leo G. Carroll as the ghost of Bob Marley and Reginald Owen

The key to a good adaptation of the written word to the screen is maintaining the integrity of the original while trimming and streamlining in a tasteful way. As I said, MGM focused on the love/redemption theme in Dickens’s story, and they stayed true to that in every creative decision they made. They created a rich atmosphere and tone that’s not found in any other version, and that complements Dickens’s words perfectly.

This is Dickens’s original ending in the book:

Scrooge was better than his word. He did it all, and infinitely more; and to Tiny Tim, who did not die, he was a second father. He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world. Some people laughed to see the alteration in him, but he let them laugh, and little heeded them; for he was wise enough to know that nothing ever happened on this globe, for good, at which some people did not have their fill of laughter in the outset; and knowing that such as these would be blind anyway, he thought it quite as well that they should wrinkle up their eyes in grins, as have the malady in less attractive forms. His own heart laughed: and that was quite enough for him.

He had no further intercourse with Spirits, but lived upon the Total Abstinence Principle, ever afterwards; and it was always said of him, that he knew how to keep Christmas well, if any man alive possessed the knowledge. May that be truly said of us, and all of us! And so, as Tiny Tim observed, God bless Us, Every One!

As with the original, this wonderful film comes to a close in Bob Cratchit’s house. Scrooge, Fred and Bess have arrived with a feast and gifts. Fred’s been made a partner, Bob is rehired and gets a raise, and Scrooge assures Bob’s sons that they all have jobs awaiting them too.

Everyone gathers round, Tiny Tim hands Scrooge a glass, and he begins his toast, which is very short but so lovely that I want to end this post with it. So I wish you all a Merry Christmas. May your lives be filled with peace and hope and endless joy. Love one another always and keep the Christmas Spirit all the year. And please don’t forget our Lord Jesus and the gift He gave to us. God bless, my friends.

I’m a little rusty at this. I’ve never done it before, but may I? [all the others respond “Yes, please do.”] To all of us, everywhere. A merry Christmas to us all, my dears.” Tiny Tim: “God bless us, every one.

Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call Him Immanuel [God with us].

~ Isaiah 7:14

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on His shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.

~ Isaiah 9:6-7

And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; He is Christ [Messiah, the Anointed One] the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.” Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom His favor rests.

~ Luke 2:8-14

And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

~ 1 John 5:11

Thank you, Lord, for your infinite mercy and grace. Not one of us is deserving of the gift you gave to the world. You gave your own life that we might live, and each of us fails miserably time and time again to be worthy of your gracious love. We are all worthless sinners, deserving of nothing but condemnation and punishment for our stubbornness, pride and cruelty. We are disobedient and petulant, and far too often we lose the battle that rages inside of every man. Not because you failed to provide us with adequate weapons to fight, but because we doubt and refuse to listen when you speak.

But in spite of our wretchedness, you still saw fit to love us. You protect us constantly from the evil one, and if we were all better at just listening, I know that we’d discover the innumerable times you were protecting us from ourselves, but we suffered because we ignored the call of your redeeming voice. But we are obstinate, ungrateful people and in desperate need of your salvation.

As we all gather today on this most precious of holidays, my Lord, I beg your continued forgiveness and compassion. Please have mercy on me, a sinner, and on all your creation. Would that we were better children. Children worthy of your precious gift 2000 years ago.

But make no mistake, today we celebrate CHRISTmas. Christ’s mass. The birth of our Lord and Saviour. And we will all strive to do better. To love one another, and to love you above all else. We will never allow your name to be forgotten. Today we say “Merry Christmas” in reverence and remembrance of our Lord Jesus Christ. Thank you, Jesus, for every breath we take.

Amen.

Images: Leonardo Da Vinci’s “Annunciation” (1472-75), Caravaggio’s “Nativity with Saint Francis and Saint Lawrence” (1609), Corrado Giaquinto’s “The Adoration of the Magi” and a second “The Adoration of the Magi” (1725), and Peter Paul Rubens “The Adoration of the Magi” (1619).

“Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received, I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, He appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all He appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that He raised Christ from the dead. But He did not raise Him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when He comes, those who belong to Him. Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For He “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under Him, it is clear that this does not include God Himself, who put everything under Christ. When He has done this, then the Son Himself will be made subject to Him who put everything under Him, so that God may be all in all.

Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? I face death every day—yes, just as surely as I boast about you in Christ Jesus our Lord. If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised,

“Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die.”
Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.” Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God—I say this to your shame.

But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as He has determined, and to each kind of seed He gives its own body. Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.

I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

“Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?”
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.”

~ 1 Corinthians 15

Happy New Year, friends and fellow bloggers. May 2015 bring good health and happiness to everyone, and God bless you all!

Note: Today’s paintings are Guercino (Giovanni Francesco Barbieri)’s “The Incredulity of Saint Thomas” (1621,) Carl Bloch’s “Christus Consolator” (1884), Unknown, Tintoretto’s “The Resurrection of Christ” (1565), Passignano (Domenico Cresti)’s “The Resurrection” (1600-25), and Peter Paul Rubens’s “The Resurrection of Christ” (1612).

I make no apologies for my unbridled adoration of the 1966 “Batman” series starring Adam West as the lovable (albeit laughable) Caped Crusader. Give me the fun, silly, bumbling antics of “Fatman and Boy Blunder” over the dark, angsty, depressing storm cloud that plagues all other incarnations of this unlikely comic book hero.

Last November saw the long awaited release of the ’66 Batman series on DVD and Blu-ray. One thing I really like about the show is that it was always about Batman and Robin together. Fighting crime, righting wrongs, spouting clever alliterations and exclamations and … well, never mind. The fact is, my own partner in crime (or crime-fighting if the situation suits us) Paul is here today, and THIS dynamic duo of The Seeker of Truth and Mr. Twilight Zone are going to BIFF! BANG! POW! our way into Rod Serling’s Fifth Dimension.

So what does Batman have to do with Rod Serling? Well, as it turns out, quite a few Batman actors crossed television paths with Mr. Serling on the earlier “The Twilight Zone”, and later in his more macabre series “Night Gallery”. During one of our many deep, reflective, highly important discussions about television and pop culture (AKA “fangirling”), Paul and I noted how a number of Batman stars had popped up in “The Twilight Zone”. And being the uber font of Serling knowledge that he is, Paul immediately rhymed off “Night Gallery” appearances by the same actors. Excited by the prospect of another joint post (and more to fan over), we started compiling a list of actors who’d appeared on Batman and “The Twilight Zone” and/or “Night Gallery”. Neither of us had any idea just how many cross-over actors there had actually been. Our initial number was 7. After some Gal Friday-type research, however, that number quickly grew to a whopping 18.

Some of these you’ll recognize right away, and others will leave you saying, “Holy Santa Claus and cemeteries, Batman! I had no idea!”

Who knew there was an interdimensional portal to the Fifth Dimension in Gotham City? Or that they had a creepy art gallery there? Come and join the Boss and me as we explore these Batman/Serling cross-overs on this, the 49th anniversary of “Batman”‘s premiere.

◊   ◊   ◊   ◊   ◊

Adam West

Night Gallery S2E3, September 29, 1971 “With Apologies to Mr. Hyde” (Mr. Hyde)

as Batman

– in all 120 episodes

◊   ◊   ◊   ◊   ◊

Alan Napier

Twilight Zone S4E17, May 9, 1963 “Passage on the Lady Anne” (Capt. Protheroe)

Night Gallery S3E3, October 15, 1972 “Fright Night” (Cousin Zachariah)
Night Gallery S2E21, February 23, 1972 “The Sins of the Fathers” (The Man)
Night Gallery S2E9, November 17, 1971 “House – With Ghost” (Doctor)

as Alfred

– Bruce Wayne’s butler in all 120 episodes.

Batman S2E22, November 17, 1966 “The Joker’s Provokers” (also played Alfred’s cousin Egbert, night watchman at the Gotham City Waterworks)

◊   ◊   ◊   ◊   ◊

Art Carney

The Twilight Zone S2E11, December 23, 1960 “Night of the Meek” (Henry Corwin)

as The Archer

Batman S2E1, September 7, 1966 “Shoot a Crooked Arrow”
Batman S2E2, September 8, 1966 “Walk the Straight and Narrow”

◊   ◊   ◊   ◊   ◊

Barbara Rush

Night Gallery S2E12, December 8, 1971 “Cool Air” (Agatha Howard)

as Nora Clavicle

Batman S3E19, January 18, 1968 “Nora Clavicle and the Ladies’ Crime Club”

◊   ◊   ◊   ◊   ◊

Burgess Meredith

Twilight Zone S1E8, November 20, 1959 “Time Enough at Last” (Henry Bemis
Twilight Zone S2E19, March 3, 1961 “Mr. Dingle, The Strong” (Luther Dingle)Twilight Zone S2E29, June 2, 1961 “The Obsolete Man” (Romney Wordsworth)Twilight Zone S4E9, February 28, 1963 “Printer’s Devil” (Mr. Smith)

Night Gallery S1E2, December 23, 1970 “The Little Black Bag” (Dr. Fall)
Night Gallery S3E9, December 3, 1972 “Finnegan’s Flight” (Charlie Finnegan)

as The Penguin

Batman S1E3, January 19, 1966 “Fine Feathered Finks”
Batman S1E4, January 20, 1966 “The Penguin’s a Jinx”

Batman S1E21, March 23, 1966 “The Penguin Goes Straight”
Batman S1E22, March 24, 1966 “Not Yet, He Ain’t”

Batman S1E33, May 4, 1966 “Fine Finny Fiends”
Batman S1E34, May 5, 1966 “Makes the Scenes”

Batman S2E17, November 2, 1966 “Hizzonner the Penguin”
Batman S2E18, November 3, 1966 “Dizzoner the Penguin”

Batman S2E27, December 7, 1966 “The Penguin’s Nest”
Batman S2E28, December 8, 1966 “The Bird’s Last Jest”

Batman S2E37, January 11, 1967 “The Zodiac Crimes”
Batman S2E38, January 12, 1967 “The Joker’s Hard Times”
Batman S2E39, January 18, 1967 “The Penguin Declines”

Batman S2E42, January 26, 1967 “Penguin Is a Girl’s Best Friend”
Batman S2E43, February 1, 1967 “Penguin Sets a Trend”
Batman S2E44, February 2, 1967 “Penguin’s Disastrous End”

Batman S3E1, September 14, 1967 “Enter Batgirl, Exit Penguin”

Batman S3E4, October 5, 1967 “The Sport of Penguins”
Batman S3E5, October 12, 1967 “A Horse of Another Color”

Batman S3E20, January 25, 1968 “Penguin’s Clean Sweep”

◊   ◊   ◊   ◊   ◊

Cesar Romero

Night Gallery S2E8, November 10, 1971 “A Matter of Semantics” (Count Dracula)

as The Joker

Batman S1E5, January 26, 1966 “The Joker is Wild”
Batman S1E6, January 27, 1966 “Batman Is Riled”

Batman S1E15, March 2, 1966 “The Joker Goes to School”
Batman S1E16, March 3, 1966 “He Meets His Match, The Grisly Ghoul”

Batman S1E25, April 6, 1966 “The Joker Trumps an Ace”
Batman S1E26, April 7, 1966 “Batman Sets the Pace”

Batman S2E21, November 16, 1966 “The Impractical Joker”
Batman S2E22, November 17, 1966 “The Joker’s Provokers”

Batman S2E37, January 11, 1967 “The Zodiac Crimes”
Batman S2E38, January 12, 1967 “The Joker’s Hard Times”
Batman S2E39, January 18, 1967 “The Penguin Declines”

Batman S2E47, February 15, 1967 “The Joker’s Last Laugh”
Batman S2E48, February 16, 1967 “The Joker’s Epitaph”

Batman S2E57, March 22, 1967 “Pop Goes the Joker”
Batman S2E58, March 23, 1967 “Flop Goes the Joker”

Batman S3E10, November 16, 1967 “Surf’s Up! Joker’s Under!”

Batman S3E16, December 28, 1967 “The Funny Feline Felonies”
Batman S3E17, January 4, 1968 “The Joke’s on Catwoman”

Batman S3E24, February 29, 1968 “The Joker’s Flying Saucer”

◊   ◊   ◊   ◊   ◊

Cliff Robertson

Twilight Zone S2E23, April 7, 1961 “A Hundred Yards Over the Rim” (Christian Horn)
Twilight Zone S3E33, May 4, 1962 “The Dummy” (Jerry Etherson)

as Shame

Batman S2E25, November 30, 1966 “Come Back, Shame”
Batman S2E26, December 1, 1966 “It’s How You Play the Game”

Batman S3E21, February 1, 1968 “The Great Escape”
Batman S3E22, February 8, 1968 “The Great Train Robbery”

◊   ◊   ◊   ◊   ◊

David Wayne

Twilight Zone S1E6, November 6, 1959 “Escape Clause” (Walter Bedeker)

Night Gallery S2E8, November 10, 1971 “The Diary” (Dr. Mill)

as The Mad Hatter

Batman S1E13, February 23, 1966 “The Thirteenth Hat”
Batman S1E14, February 24, 1966 “Batman Stands Pat”

Batman S2E35, January 4, 1967 “The Contaminated Cowl”
Batman S2E36, January 5, 1967 “The Mad Hatter Runs Afoul”

◊   ◊   ◊   ◊   ◊

Dina Merrill

Night Gallery S3E15, May 27, 1973 “Hatred Unto Death” (Ruth Wilson)

as Calamity Jan

Batman S3E21, February 1, 1968 “The Great Escape”
Batman S3E22, February 8, 1968 “The Great Train Robbery”

◊   ◊   ◊   ◊   ◊

Ida Lupino

Twilight Zone S1E4, October 23, 1959 “The Sixteen-Millimeter Shrine” Barbara Trenton
Twilight Zone S5E25, March 20, 1964 — Director of “The Masks”

as Dr. Cassandra Spellcraft

Batman S3E25, March 7, 1968 “The Entrancing Dr. Cassandra”

◊   ◊   ◊   ◊   ◊

John Astin

Twilight Zone S2E23, April 7, 1961 “A Hundred Yards Over the Rim” (Charlie)

Night Gallery S1E5, January 13, 1971 “Pamela’s Voice” (Jonathan)
Night Gallery S1E3, December 30, 1970 — Director of “The House”
Night Gallery S2E3, October 6, 1971 — Director of “A Fear of Spiders”
Night Gallery S2E9 November 17, 1971 “Hell’s Bells” (Randy Miller)
Night Gallery S2E10, November 24, 1971 — Director of “The Dark Boy”
Night Gallery S3E2, October 1, 1972 “The Girl with the Hungry Eyes” (Munsch)

as The Riddler

Batman S2E45, February 8, 1967 “Batman’s Anniversary”
Batman S2E46, February 9, 1967 “A Riddling Controversy”

◊   ◊   ◊   ◊   ◊

Julie Newmar

Twilight Zone S4E14, April 11, 1963 “Of Late I Think of Cliffordville” (Miss Devlin)

as Catwoman

Batman S1E19, March 16, 1966 “The Purr-fect Crime”
Batman S1E20, March 17, 1966 “Better Luck Next Time”

Batman S2E3, September 14, 1966 “Hot Off the Griddle”
Batman S2E4, September 15, 1966 “The Cat and the Fiddle”

Batman S2E9, October 6, 1966 “Ma Parker” (a 10-second cameo appearance at the prison)

Batman S2E29, December 14, 1966 “The Cat’s Meow”
Batman S2E30, December 15, 1966 “The Bat’s Kow Tow”

Batman S2E33, December 28, 1966 “The Sandman Cometh”
Batman S2E34, December 29, 1966 “The Catwoman Goeth”

Batman S2E40, January 19, 1967 “That Darn Catwoman”
Batman S2E41, January 25, 1967 “Scat! Darn Catwoman”

Batman S2E49, February 22, 1967 “Catwoman Goes to College”
Batman S2E50, February 23, 1967 “Batman Displays His Knowledge”

◊   ◊   ◊   ◊   ◊

Roddy McDowall

Twilight Zone S1E25, March 25, 1960 “People Are Alike All Over” (Sam Conrad)

Night Gallery Pilot Film, November 8, 1969 “The Cemetery” (Jeremy Evans)

as The Bookworm

Batman S1E29, April 20, 1966 “The Bookworm Turns”
Batman S1E30, April 21, 1966 “While Gotham City Burns”

◊   ◊   ◊   ◊   ◊

Rudy Vallee

Night Gallery S2E4, October 6, 1971 “Marmalade Wine” (Dr. Francis Deeking)

as Lord Marmaduke Ffogg

Batman S3E11, November 23, 1967 “The Londinium Larcenies”
Batman S3E12, November 30, 1967 “The Foggiest Notion”
Batman S3E13, December 7, 1967 “The Bloody Tower”

◊   ◊   ◊   ◊   ◊

Stafford Repp

Twilight Zone S2E7, November 18, 1960 “Nick of Time” (Mechanic)
Twilight Zone S3E7, October 27, 1961 “The Grave” (Ira Broadly)
Twilight Zone S5E28, April 10, 1964 “Caesar and Me” (Pawnbroker)

as Chief O’Hara

– in all 120 episodes

◊   ◊   ◊   ◊   ◊

Victor Buono

Night Gallery S2E9, November 17, 1971 “A Midnight Visit to the Neighbourhood Blood Bank” (Vampire)
Night Gallery S2E23, March 22, 1971 “Satisfaction Guaranteed” (Customer)

as King Tut

Batman S1E27, April 13, 1966 “The Curse of Tut”
Batman S1E28, April 14, 1966 “The Pharaoh’s in a Rut”

Batman S2E7, September 28, 1966 “The Spell of Tut”
Batman S2E8, September 29, 1966 “Tut’s Case is Shut”

Batman S2E53, March 8, 1967 “King Tut’s Coup”
Batman S2E54, March 9, 1967 “Batman’s Waterloo”

Batman S3E6, October 19, 1967 “The Unkindest Tut of All”

Batman S3E23 February 22, 1968 “I’ll Be a Mummy’s Uncle”

◊   ◊   ◊   ◊   ◊

Vincent Price

Night Gallery S3E1, September 24, 1972 “Return of the Sorcerer” (John Carnby)
Night Gallery S2E2, September 22, 1971 “Class of ’99” (Professor)

as Egghead

Batman S2E13, October 19, 1966 “An Egg Grows in Gotham”
Batman S2E14, October 20, 1966 “The Yegg Foes in Gotham”

Batman S3E8, November 2, 1967 “The Ogg and I”
Batman S3E9, November 9, 1967 “How to Hatch a Dinosaur”

Batman S3E15, December 21, 1967 “The Ogg Couple”

◊   ◊   ◊   ◊   ◊

Zsa Zsa Gabor

Night Gallery S2E13, December 15, 1971 “The Painted Mirror” (Mrs. Moore)

as Minerva

Batman S3E26, March 14, 1968 “Minerva, Mayhem and Millionaires”

◊   ◊   ◊   ◊   ◊

And two extras for you…

Pat Hingle

Twilight Zone S4E15, April 18, 1963 “The Incredible World of Horace Ford” (Horace Ford)

Pat Hingle wasn’t in the 1966 Batman series, however, he did play the recurring role of Commissioner James Gordon in the 1990s’ run of Batman films: “Batman” (1989), “Batman Returns” (1992), “Batman Forever” (1995), and “Batman and Robin” (1997).

◊   ◊   ◊   ◊   ◊

Behind-the-scenes connection: Batman (1966) producer and narrator (yes, he’s the narrator’s voice too!) William Dozier was also the producer of all 26 episodes of Serling’s series “The Loner” (1965-1966).

Burt Ward, Adam West and William Dozier

Wendy: Wow, Boss, did you have any idea that our list of cross-over actors would be so long? We knew there were definitely enough to warrant a blog post about it, but I was so surprised to learn there were this many.

Paul: Same here. I knew that a lot of “character actors” had appeared on both shows (or all three, to be more precise), but I was surprised at just how many there were. I would have guessed no more than 10.

Wendy: Me too! I think the first few times we talked about it, we named 5 or 6. But they just kept coming! 18 is a very respectable number. And there are a few big names too. Like Cesar Romero and of course Burgess Meredith who, as The Penguin, had more appearances than any other Batman villain — 20 episodes he was in!

Paul: I could have sworn Romero would have the most appearances, not Meredith. But I think that’s because Joker is the most iconic Batman villain. But what got me was the number of “Serling actors” who had turned up on Batman. It’s been years since I last saw the show, and so I’d forgotten, for example, that John Astin stepped in as Riddler. I was only thinking of Frank Gorshin! I knew there’d been three different actresses playing Catwoman, and I could name all three without looking it up, but I wasn’t expecting so many other names!

Wendy: Romero came close — 19 episodes!

Paul: Yes. Makes me wish they’d find a lost episode with him in it!

Wendy: Oh, me too! The Joker is my favourite villain. And Romero’s single Night Gallery appearance is actually one of the handful of NG episodes I’ve seen. “A Matter of Semantics” is just a short little segment, but I liked it a lot!

Paul: I knew that Batman was the hot show when it came out, and that guest-starring on it was sort of the thing to do, but I didn’t realize how many they actually recruited. I imagine it was a lot of fun for these stars to put on a silly costume and just have fun, you know?

And yes, Romero’s time on NG isn’t long, but it’s memorable. After all, if you want a classic vampire, the list is short, right? And Romero is ideal!

Wendy: Right, and you know how I feel about Draculas… ;P

Paul: Of course. You hate them! ;P #Not

Wendy: ;) And you’re right. At the time, a guest spot on Batman was something every actor wanted to do. In fact, this reminds me of something I read earlier in a fantastic Batman book I’ve had for ages, “Batman: The Complete History”. A quote from Burgess Meredith about appearing on the show: “It was kind of a trendy thing to do at the time.” And Romero recalled that for this Batman incarnation, he was told by producers that it would be the villains who were the important characters. And I think we can both agree that this was indeed true. Batman and Robin may have appeared in all 120 episodes, but it’s the villains who steal the show.

Ha! “Steal” the show. Villains, stealing… *nudges you* ;D

Paul: I’m not really much of one for puns, as you WELL know, GF. xD

Wendy: Oh, I know how intimidated you are by my punning prowess.

“Holy punning prowess, Batman!” xD

Paul: U-pun my word, GF …

And yes, there’s no question that Batman was a showcase for villains. Having Adam West deadpan these “serious” lines while the villains chewed the scenery and lobbed bad puns (yes, there IS such a thing — MINE are golden!) was a great formula. It’s easy to see why it was such a smash, and why we’re still enjoying reruns today. Just as we do with the Twilight Zone and Night Gallery!

Wendy: Yes, each of these three shows had that something special about them. They just click.

Paul: And Burt Ward was so hilariously earnest. It’s just FUN, you know? And that’s in such short supply these days. Everything’s so dark now. Makes me want to say, “Why so SERIOUS?”

Wendy: Oh, Burt Ward was the perfect partner for Adam West. His “Holy” exclamations are just priceless! And yeah, some can call Batman campy, but campy is just another word for good, wholesome fun. We need more of that today.

Paul: Definitely. There’s BAD campy and GOOD campy. Batman is unquestionably the latter. Don’t they have those exclamations compiled somewhere? It’s probably in one of your books, but aren’t they rounded up online? They must be.

Wendy: They certainly are! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exclamations_by_Robin Bet you never guessed there were that many!

Paul: Whoa! No, I certainly didn’t. Man, you’d think the show ran a dozen seasons!

Wendy: The Gal Friday in me now wants to comb over each and every episode to document those exclamations for myself! :P

Paul: I’ll bet! As you and I have discovered, you can’t just take these things on faith. First-hand research is essential. I think you have a mission here!

Wendy: “Coming soon to a WordPress blog post near you, from The Seeker of Truth… “Holy Exclamations, Batman!” xD

Paul: I’d love to read it!

Anybody else would be kidding, but I’m fully expecting you to do this sooner or later. :)

Wendy: Ha! I’ll bet you would, Boss! And to tell the truth, I probably will! :)

Okay, let’s talk a bit about the other star villain of Batman, and the one I suspect a lot of people remember the most – the purrrfect villainess, Catwoman. Julie Newmar comes in third on the list of most appearances with 13 episodes. Now, the Catwoman character does make three more appearances in the third and final season of Batman, but by then she was played by Eartha Kitt — my own personal preference for Catwoman! I’ll bet you were surprised that Newmar wasn’t my favourite. :)

Paul: Yes, I was! Especially because I know how much you like Newmar’s work. Kitt DID do a terrific job in the role, but I think Newmar sort of became THE Catwoman in fans’ eyes, sort of like Gorshin is THE Riddler.

Wendy: Absolutely. I am a big fan of hers. I mean, I think Newmar’s Miss Devlin was a devilishly good Devil in TZ! She could even give Robin Hughes a run for his Howling Man money!

I actually suspect that I saw Kitt as Catwoman first when I was young. So for me, she’ll always be the “first” (and by extension “best”) Catwoman.

Paul: Yes! Newmar and Hughes were so good. In fact, there were a number of actors who played the Devil in some form on TZ, and they all did a terrific job. There was also Thomas Gomez (Mr. Cadwallader in “Escape Clause”) and Burgess Meredith (Mr. Smith in “Printer’s Devil”) — the Penguin himself!

Wendy: Oh, Meredith as Mr. Smith was brilliant. I wish that somehow both Mr. Smith and Miss Devlin could have been in an episode together. I have a feeling that Newmar and Meredith would have made a great duo! You know, Catwoman and The Penguin were never in a Batman ’66 episode together either.

Paul: Really? With all the villain combos they had, I find that hard to believe! And yes, can you imagine Mr. Smith and Miss Devlin together? We’d need to call in Sam and Dean from “Supernatural” to defeat them!

Wendy: Ha! Yep! Bring the salt, boys. LOTS of salt. ;D

Paul: And bone up on your Latin!

Wendy: Yes! And you’re right, Boss, I couldn’t believe it either! The Penguin and Catwoman not teaming together? And you know what? They didn’t even make up for it with the 1966 Batman movie, because Julie Newmar was unavailable to play Catwoman, so it was Lee Meriwether who got to have all sorts of wacky fun with Meredith’s Penguin. Such a shame. Meriwether was an okay Catwoman, but she lacked Newmar’s style and Eartha Kitt’s ferocity, I think.

Paul: Yes, Meriwether did a good job, but she was kind of forgettable. Which was certainly NOT the case with Newmar and Kitt!

Wendy: Exactly! They each had a special spark that made them memorable.

Not surprisingly, Burgess Meredith also racks up the most Twilight Zone appearances of any actor on our list. And two Night Gallerys too! He was certainly a popular guy at the time. I think everyone remembers him as Henry Bemis in what is probably the most recognizable TZ episode of all time, “Time Enough at Last”. But even I haven’t seen him in either of his NG appearances. How did he measure up there?

Paul: Predictably fine performances, especially in “The Little Black Bag,” where he plays a skid-row doctor who gets a chance to sort of redeem himself when a medical bag from the future unexpectedly comes into his possession. He gives the role some real heart, not surprisingly. Great combination of Meredith’s acting and Serling’s writing from NG’s first season.

Wendy: It sounds great!

Another of our actors who made an appearance in all three shows is John Astin, whose very brief stint as the Riddler in season 2 (a measly two episodes) left fans less than impressed. So UNimpressed, in fact, that Frank Gorshin would return to the role for the third and final season.

As you mentioned earlier, Frank Gorshin was THE Riddler. He’s the villain who kicked off the entire series! But you know, I think everyone is a bit hard on Astin. It’s not that his performance was BAD, he just couldn’t replicate Gorshin’s iconic portrayal. I watched Astin’s two episodes not long ago, and I think part of his trouble is that he tried to copy what Gorshin had done: That crazy laugh (which NO ONE but Gorshin could do), the bubbling dialogue, the jerky yet fluid body movements… *sighs* Astin just tried too hard. It was the wrong role for him. Gomez he could do. The Riddler? Not so much.

Paul: Right, and no one should have expected him to. You have to take the role and make it your own. Play to your own strengths, not copy someone else’s. Did Jack Nicholson try to be Cesar Romero? Did Heath Ledger try to be Nicholson? No. And thank God they didn’t.

Wendy: So true! Each was a perfect joker, but each was completely different. And that was the only way that each of them could “own” the role.

Paul: Astin, as we well know, was loaded with talent. He didn’t have to be a Gorshin copycat. He’s THE Gomez Addams, but we found out on Night Gallery that he could do more. In three separate segments — one in each of NG’s three seasons — he played a murderer, a businessman and a hippie. And as if that wasn’t enough, he tried his hand at directing, and he did a fantastic job! He was the director of “A Fear of Spiders”, “The Dark Boy” and “The House,” three fan favorites, all of which show a real sense of style and visual flair.

Wendy: I saw him in “Hell’s Bells” and it was SUCH a departure from the suave Gomez Addams that I could hardly believe it was him! But so entertaining!

It was fun to learn that John Astin and another cross-over actor, Cliff Robertson, both appeared together on The Twilight Zone. I thought that was neat. Two Batman villains working together on a TZ episode. :)

Paul: Yes, everyone remembers Robertson’s work on TZ. They recall him in his top hat on “A Hundred Yards Over the Rim,” but they forget Astin had a small speaking role in that one too. In fact, he sets up Robertson’s final lines by asking him what was over the rim. It’s a small part, but he does a nice job. Robertson, meanwhile, was crazy good, not only in “A Hundred Yards,” but in “The Dummy”. I mean, you really thought this guy was losing his marbles and having a debate with a ventriloquist dummy! It was so eerie, the way that episode was written and shot, but Robertson really made it memorable, right down to supplying the dummies’ voices. That off-the-wall laugh near the end is an absolute hair-raiser!

Wendy: “The Dummy” is definitely one of the scarier episodes of TZ. You’re right, the laugh is guaranteed to give you goosebumps!

A fun bat-fact for you, Boss: Cliff Robertson was married to Dina Merrill, who played his Batman partner in crime, Calamity Jan!

Paul: Oh, really? I didn’t know that. Wish I could say that Merrill’s episode of NG is a memorable one, but ugh, it’s pretty terrible. It was the last NG broadcast, in fact, so you could say it’s the “Bewitchin’ Pool” of NG, to mention the generally poorly-reviewed last episode of TZ. I mean, Merrill spends the episode babysitting a gorilla (clearly a guy in a suit — the same one from the Addams Family, in fact!). I’m sure she was wishing the part was as interesting as when she played Calamity Jan!

Wendy: Yeah, doesn’t exactly scream FUN! :-/

Robertson and Merrill weren’t the only husband and wife duo to don villainous Batman personas, by the way. Ida Lupino, who played Dr. Cassandra Spellcraft, was married to her on-screen husband Cabala, Howard Duff.

Paul: Lupino did such terrific work on TZ, as you know. She played a rather unsympathetic part in “The Sixteen-Millimeter Shrine” so well you actually felt BAD for her character, and then she came back in Season 5 to direct “The Masks”! She imbued Serling’s remarkable script with a great visual scheme. She deserves part of the credit for that episode being considered such a classic.

Wendy: Agreed. And the only female director on TZ too!

Paul: Duff, meanwhile, was the poor, deluded Gerald Reagan of “A World of Difference,” and he sells it beautifully. He’s so believable in the part, you could swear it was actually happening — that he’s an actor who suddenly decided to retreat permanently into a fantasy world. Ha, he and Lupino both look so classically conservative in their early ’60s clothing on TZ that seeing them in color in these wild costumes on Batman is quite a sight!

Wendy: Oh, I didn’t realize that Duff had been in a TZ episode! “A World of Difference” is one that I… er, well, haven’t seen. :P But you’ve just proven again what a small world it was for TV actors back in the ’60s and ’70s!

Paul: Another one you haven’t seen? Yeah, it’s no B-movie, right, GF? No bout of wrestling? O_o

Wendy: Ha! Yeah, yeah, yeah. We all have our priorities in life. ;P

Paul: And you’re right! The TV world did seem to be smaller then. Or producers preferred to pull from a smaller pool of established talent.

Wendy: So true! I actually wish they’d still do that now. Good actors are NOT a dime a dozen, so I would welcome more quality performances from a smaller group of accomplished performers.

Paul: Yes, I know what you mean! It’s great to give up-and-coming talent a break, bring some new faces in, but when you’ve got such tremendous actors and actresses available to breathe life into these roles, why not use them?

Wendy: Absolutely! And speaking of those wild Batman costumes, one of the most colourful Batman villains has to be King Tut. After the Joker, I think he’s my favourite. And Victor Buono always comes off as such a gentle yet boisterous man. He’s a real joy to watch. I really liked how they set up his character too. King Tut is actually just a normal guy — a Yale Egyptology professor — who gets hit on the head and has a bit of an amnesia-induced identity crisis! And I love all things Egyptian, so you can imagine what a kick I get out of the cool sets they built for his episodes.

Paul: I certainly can! Buono was so good at doing those types of roles, and the funny thing is, he got to do the same thing on NG! One time, anyway. He got to play a stereotypical vampire in one of the little comedy black-out sketches they’d sometimes do. Most of them are pretty forgettable, but Buono makes “A Midnight Visit to the Neighborhood Blood Bank” fun! Not unlike Cesar Romero does on “A Matter of Semantics.” And Buono’s other NG role, “Satisfaction Guaranteed”, is very amusing. You have to see it to believe it!

Wendy: Yes, I’ve seen the segment “Satisfaction Guaranteed” and it was such a delight! Short, sweet, creepy and an ending you’re not really expecting! ;D

Paul: So you know why it defies description!

Wendy: Oh, yeah, I know! It’s a NG must-see for sure.

Paul: Interestingly enough, it was a replacement segment. When the episode it was in first aired, it had a different segment (“Witches’ Feast”) that was widely panned, and when the episode was repeated a few months later, “Satisfaction Guaranteed” was in its place.

Wendy: Oh, really? Well, I’m certainly glad that this segment made it to air. It’s so clever and memorable, I’d hate it to not be a part of the NG canon. And hey, isn’t that the episode that has Vincent Price’s “Class of ’99” segment? I’ve seen him in “Return of the Sorcerer”, but unfortunately I’ve yet to see “Class of ’99”. I have read the script for it though, and it was amazing. It was so striking on paper that seeing it brought to life must really be something special. I’m sure that Price’s performance is nothing short of stellar, especially because he’s working with such brilliant material.

There was certainly some exceptional talent in Batman, Twilight Zone and Night Gallery, but I think you’ll agree that the biggest star in this group is the master of horror himself, Vincent Price. He played the rather silly character Egghead in Batman, but man, it’s Vincent Price for crying out loud! THE Vincent Price! Readers of my blog know how much I adore Price. “House on Haunted Hill“, the Roger Corman Edgar Allan Poe films, and heck, he was even in Scooby Doo! I mean, the only way life could be any better is if he’d been in an episode of The Twilight Zone. And wow, wouldn’t THAT have been spectacular?

We’ve talked about that before — what dream TZ role he could have played. I can think of a number of episodes that I would have liked to see him take on. But I still say the best fit for him would have been the role of Fitzgerald Fortune in “A Piano in the House”. I take nothing away from Barry Morse who was truly wonderful as Fortune himself, but can you imagine Price in that? Just WOW.

Paul: Oh, “Class of ’99” is a highlight, all right, and Price is a big part of the reason it was such a success. The part calls for someone with an aristocratic, professorial air who could be project menace … gee, any actor come to mind who could do THAT? ;) That episode, I should also note, was the first time Jeannot Szwarc directed a NG. He did a terrific job, and quickly became a huge favorite of Serling’s. And guess what? He’s still active today. He’s directed episodes of “Supernatural” and numerous other notable series. But yes, to return to VP, he did such marvelous work in “Class of ’99” and “The Return of the Sorcerer.” He just had that appealing presence. He had such class, and he somehow, SOMEHOW, made the material scary AND fun. How do you do that? I have no idea, but he did it to a T. So he was ideal for NG. And yes, if only he’d done a TZ or two! How perfect that would have been. I can only assume it didn’t work out since he was very busy with the Roger Corman films when TZ was on, but wow, yes, imagine him as Fitzgerald Fortune! As you say, Barry Morse was great, but VP would have elevated the material even more. Ah, well. We’ll just have to be grateful we got him as Egghead and in delightful roles on NG.

Wendy: Absolutely. Anything with Vincent Price will make ME smile, and his roles on Batman and NG were certainly something special.

Paul: You spoke of these programs having such “exceptional talent,” and I couldn’t agree more. When we first started talking about this post, I knew it would be interesting, but I didn’t realize HOW interesting. And fun! I’ve really enjoyed delving into the men and women who made TZ, Batman and NG so entertaining. :)

Wendy: This WAS a very interest topic to talk about. We’ve often marveled at spotting a particular actor popping up in numerous episodes of The Twilight Zone, so it stands to reason that when you start crossing series and not just episodes, it’s going to be a fun experience. And I ask you, Boss, what could be better than Batman and Rod Serling? O_o

Paul: Nothing I can think of! Seriously, all three of these series represent a level of quality and fun that are sadly absent today. There are some very good shows out today, don’t get me wrong, but … we’ve lost something. It takes only a few episodes of Batman, TZ and NG to see that.

Wendy: I could not agree with you more. All three series prove that you don’t need graphic violence, CGI gore and gratuitous nudity to entertain. All of those things are crutches; ways to distract the audience from the fact that the script is poorly written, the characters are hollow, and that there is NOTHING of value to be gleaned from watching the show. A good TV show entertains all of your senses, yes, but in balance. And that’s one thing Batman, NG, and TZ have in common — they stimulate ALL of your senses without overpowering any one, or leaving any out. They LOOK good, they SOUND good, and most importantly, they ARE good. It’s fun and innocent with just enough pizzazz to keep you wanting more. You can watch any of these shows and walk away feeling good. The same can’t be said for a lot of show on television today. And that’s a real shame.

But thankfully the classics will live on. DVDs, Blu-rays, and in the occasional re-run on TV. And you know what? Batman, Night Gallery, The Twilight Zone — they’ll never fall out of fashion. Because deep down, I think everyone wants the same thing: To enjoy themselves. And you just can’t see the George Barris Batmobile come flying out of that cave and not feel like you’re 8 years old again, seeing it for the first time. :)

Paul: I know! And no matter how many times they redesign the Batmobile for these high-tech movies, NOTHING can top that sleek, shiny car with the flame coming out of the back. No amount of CGI or multi-million-dollar blueprints can improve on a true CLASSIC. And come to think of it, doesn’t that same lesson apply when we look at these three shows and compare them to today’s fare?

Wendy: Yes, that’s so true!

Paul: And no matter how many times we rewatch them, we never tire of them. In fact, I nearly always spot something I missed before. And they never fail to entertain. Makes me want to program my own marathon right now! What do you say, GF? :)

Wendy: Holy brilliant ideas, Boss! I say… “To the television, Robin!” ;D

You’re the best! Thanks so much for fanning about this with me. Especially today, on the anniversary of Batman’s premiere. :)

Paul: My pleasure! Anniversary or no, I’m always happy to fan with you, especially about these shows. :)

Wendy: Me too. Like Batman and Robin, the Boss and Gal Friday need no excuse to have fun. See you around the Fifth Dimension! :)

◊   ◊   ◊   ◊   ◊

Hope you enjoyed our “blogcast” — like a podcast, but with no sound and lots of reading. ;P And if it’s been a while since you’ve enjoyed watching our heroes in their spandex suits, or maybe you’re not a fan but you need a good laugh, then today is the perfect time to rewatch an episode or two of this classic TV series. They just don’t make ‘em like this anymore.

See you next time, Bat Fans. Same bat-time. Same bat-blog.

January 5, 2015: At 10:00AM, it was -30ºC. For my friends south of the border, that’s -22ºF. For everyone else — it was COLD. Very, very cold.

But, I’ve chosen to live up here in the middle of nowhere. Well, “chosen” isn’t entirely accurate. I was born and raised here, and I guess I’ve become acclimatized to the harsh and extraordinarily long winter season. This year it started bright and early. On the first of November.

As I said on my About Wendy page though, the three months of summer are pure paradise. In Northern Ontario, we can reach up to +30ºC (+35º in an extreme heat wave at the tail end of June, early July), but for the most part, June, July and August average a very comfortable 20ºC. Which suits me just fine. T-shirts are great, but I really do enjoy sporting a stylish jacket and knee-high boots whenever I can.

We have no poisonous snakes or insects. There are no hoodlums running around looting or shooting people. There’s no flooding or tornadoes (though we HAVE had the occasional small-scale tornado in the past, and extremely high winds are a worry out here in the sticks where I’m completely surrounded by trees — but nothing Kansas-worthy, that’s for sure). No tidal waves, no mud slides. No earthquakes (the rare tremor, but San Fran this ain’t!). The only real worry is forest fires, but thankfully they are few and far between. Again, I’m in the East, not on the West Coast.

But winter? Ugh. Winter is a real drag. In late November is when you really start to feel it. The days get unbearably short. Daylight Saving Time is no help either. The moron who thought THAT was a good idea should have been knee-capped, then drawn and quartered. Saskatchewan is the only province with any sense. They have chosen to opt out of this life-sucking backwards-business formality.

And we get a lot of snow. Sure, not Arctic proportions. But we measure snow in feet, not inches. By the end of February, I won’t be able to see out my studio window thanks to all the snow that’s slid off the roof. On January 4th? I shovelled my patio at 10:00 AM. At 4:00 PM, I was back outside doing it all over again. It’s not unheard of to wake up in the morning, put my coat on, grab the wood box and head out the door… only to find I have to push the door open through 6-8 inches of snow. Then shovel my way to the woodpile so I can get the fire going before I freeze to death. Wood heat is nice and very economical, but it’s a real pain to wake up in a cold house and then have to work to warm it up again.

But in the midst of all this harsh Northern exposure are a few treasures. Furry, feathered treasures that I wouldn’t give up for the world.

Thanks to a jerk-off industrial operation that illegally opened what is the equivalent of a mine across the road from me many years ago, there’s much less wildlife than there used to be. But I have a few mainstays. My darling chickadees who greet me every morning, my sweet squirrel Cutie Pie, and a beautiful cross-fox named Paintbrush. Paintbrush hasn’t been around much this year yet, but he was a near-daily fixture last winter.

Probably my favourite photo in the entire world. Also my desktop image!

He would come up to the house and wait so patiently for his breakfast.

And I’d often catch him snoozing away in the far too seldom-seen sunshine.

So yeah, I can complain about the winters up here, but it’s just a fact of life that there’s always a trade off. If you want a warm, green Christmas, hey, you can move to Florida — and face tidal waves and alligators. And if you want winter wildlife and the peace and serenity that comes with a Northern Ontario summer? Well, then you’re going to have to bite the bullet and put up with snow and cold. 9 months of the year, apparently.

Photos are © Copyright Wendy Brydge 2015. All Rights Reserved.

I just love when the month begins on a Sunday. I’m not sure why, but I really do. It feels like today is a good time for some words of wisdom. So here are a few of my favourite Proverbs. Wishing you all a wonderful February. God bless!

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.

~ Proverbs 1:7

He who heeds discipline shows the way to life, but whoever ignores correction leads others astray.

~ Proverbs 10:17

Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates correction is stupid.

~ Proverbs 12:1

A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.

~ Proverbs 12:10

A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps.

~ Proverbs 14:15

The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life, turning a man from the snares of death.

~ Proverbs 14:27

Commit to the Lord whatever you do, and your plans will succeed.

~ Proverbs 16:3

The Lord works out everything for His own ends–even the wicked for a day of disaster.

~ Proverbs 16:4

In his heart a man plans his course, but the Lord determines his steps.

~ Proverbs 16:9

Through love and faithfulness sin is atoned for; through the fear of the Lord a man avoids evil.

~ Proverbs 16:6

The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.

~ Proverbs 16:33

Note: Today’s paintings: Andrea del Verrocchio’s (with Leonardo Da Vinci) “The Baptism of Christ” (1472-1475), Carlo Dolci’s “The Virgin and Child with Flowers” (after 1642), Orazio Gentileschi’s “David Contemplating the Head of Goliath” (1610), and Ford Madox Brown’s “Christ Washing Peter’s Feet” (1851-56). Header image is a detail from Peter Paul Rubens’s “St. Thomas” (1611).

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

Roses are red, Kanamits are scary, I’ve often wondered if Venusians are hairy.

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

Do you remember exchanging Valentines in public school? Every kid likes February 14th when they’re that young (well, unless you’re Charlie Brown!) because it means two things: 1) No real school work, and 2) Arts, crafts, and candy!
I never cared about the candy/chocolate (I’ve never liked chocolate!), or the fun Valentine’s Day-themed word puzzles and colouring pages. No, I was more anxious to get my hands on that little brown paper bag, the red and pink construction paper, and the glitter. Because few things were more satisfying than taping that fancy little arted-up Valentine “mailbox” to the side of my desk.

I ask you, what’s more fun than vintage Valentines? They’re colourful, cute and clever, and are often adorned with sickening sugary puns. No, come on! They aren’t sickening at all! That’s all part of their charm. But picking out just the right one for each classmate was a chore — making sure not to send any unintentional “signals” by making a poor choice. Because there was always that one design in every box that was just a little TOO suggestive to give to the kid you secretly (or not so secretly) couldn’t stand. Or the kid that your best friend had a crush on. Girls just know not to go there. Even when she’s 8.

You know what else is great about vintage Valentines? Because of their fun, quirky nature, you’d be amazed at the kinds of mash-ups you can create. Like what I have for you today. Submitted for your perusal, my Twilight Zone Valentines!

“Chesterfield King Extra Length? Sure!”

I had to laugh when I came across some authentic vintage Valentines whose TZ potential was blatantly obvious. Blog/Twitter friend Mike actually brought up the idea of TZ-esque Valentines a few years ago when Paul and I had some fun with the hashtag #BeMyTZValentine. And once I got started with these, it was hard to stop!

I paired each legitimate Valentine with a single episode of the Twilight Zone that I thought it best suited, and I didn’t do any episode cross-overs with the receiver/sender — both are characters from that specific episode.

So if our favourite TZ characters exchanged Valentines? I suspect it would look a little something like this. Enjoy and Happy Valentine’s Day!

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

The Grave

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

Perchance to Dream

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

To Serve Man

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

The Chaser

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

The Howling Man

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

The Dummy

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

Jess-Belle

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

Eye of the Beholder

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

From Agnes With Love

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

The Hitch-hiker

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

The Lonely

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

Nightmare at 20,000 Feet

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

The Grave

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

Young Man’s Fancy

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

The Howling Man

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

I really like it when I stumble upon something really cool right out of the blue. I said that about this interesting 1974 interview with Christopher Lee, and now I’ve found something else that was just too good not to share.

I certainly never intended to write another Addams Family post so soon after the last one. In fact, I didn’t think there’d be an occasion to write about them ever again. But one of the best received features of my previous Addams Family post was the behind the scenes images of the actresses other than Carolyn Jones who auditioned for the role of Morticia.

You don’t recognize this photo from the other post? That’s because it’s a new shot. One of many wonderful unpublished images (from LIFE Magazine’s archives) that I found today. All are obviously from 1964 — the year “The Addams Family” hit the airwaves.

Most of the actors/actresses in these photos are unidentified. But Twilight Zone fans won’t need any help with this first image.

On the left is Lisa Loring, the actress who would successfully go on to play Gomez and Morticia’s daughter Wednesday. But do you recognize the girl on the right? That’s two-time Twilight Zone actress Tracy Stratford — she played Christie Streator in the classic episode “Living Doll” (1963) (“My name is Talky Tina!”), and then again in the terribly annoying “Little Girl Lost” (1962) as Tina Miller. We’ll never know why Tracy lost out to Lisa, but if I had to venture a guess, I’d say it was probably her irritating voice. ;P

This is a lovely shot of a very pretty unknown Morticia-hopeful going over her lines.

Potential Pugsleys. Ken Weatherwax (who won the role) is on the right. The kid at the top reminds me so much of Paul Teutul Jr. from American Chopper…

The much sweeter looking Blossom Rock is the Grandmama we all know and love, but this actress put her best wart, er, foot forward and auditioned for the role too. She is just so creepy. More “House of Frightenstein” than “Addams Family”, I think.

Old-man Lurch? Yeah, they tried that.

“This Lurch looks too dopey…”

“This Lurch looks too dead…”

“This Lurch has no lips…”

“This Lurch is just right!”

And let’s not forget this unidentified Uncle Fester…

… who looks as if he wants to suck your brain out of your face.

I swear he’s probably lisping here. “Thisth isth just tho FABULOUTH!” O_o

Wasn’t that neat to see what the Addamses MIGHT have looked like? Some weird looking characters, but I got such a kick out of these images and hope you did too.

A second post changes nothing though, you understand? I’m still Munsters 100%. Me and Bo Duke. He’s a Munsters person too. Yep. So there. (You’ll have to read the other post to get the reference.)

The Trinity is a basic foundation of Christianity. But for a lot of people, it’s one of the most difficult things to understand. I’ve heard a number of explanations, including the one about how God is like water — the same thing in three different forms. But that’s not how I understand the Trinity at all.

The Trinity is not three separate persons. The simplest way to understand this is to look at yourself first. As God is a Trinity, so are each and every one of us. The Bible says that we were made in God’s Image, Likeness and Form — three things that when united form a trinity.

We have a MIND, and with it, God gives us the ability to use reason and logic; to divide Truth from Falsehood.

We have a HEART, or DESIRE, and with it, we choose to love or to hate.

And each of us has a BODY, a physical form where our MIND and our HEART dwell. A place for our thoughts and desires to manifest.

Image, Likeness, and Form. God is a trinity and so are we.

The Trinity of God is of course Father, Spirit, Son. Father: The Image (Mind) of God is Truth; Spirit: The Likeness of God (His Desire, His Heart) is Love; and Son: God’s Form (physical body) is Jesus. Jesus is Truth and Love in flesh, the Messiah = Jesus the Christ. Remember, Christ is not a last name, it means Messiah, which in the Old Testament was to be God Himself in flesh. Jesus is not a man, nor is He the offspring of God; He is nothing created, He is the Creator. Father Truth filled with and displaying His Spirit which is Love, made visible in God’s One and Only Form, the Son, Jesus.

There are some Christians that actually teach AGAINST the Trinity, saying that it’s Jesus and only Jesus, end of story. Well, Jesus is God, YES, but there’s more to it than that. “Just Jesus, no trinity” would be a form without a mind and a heart. And when you understand the Trinity as I’ve explained it, you can see that you need all three parts to make the whole. God IS a trinity. WE are a trinity. Your mind is not the same as your desire. Your form is not your mind. They’re all separate, yet they come together as one.

John 1:1 — “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made. In Him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.”

John 1:14 “The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the One and Only (the Only Begotten), who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

Jesus is the immortal God taking off His immortality, clothing Himself with mortality, crucified, and risen immortal once again. God is Truth and Love made visible in flesh. Jesus.

He [Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. And He is the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything He might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through His blood, shed on the cross.

Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now He has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in His sight, without blemish and free from accusation— if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

~ Colossians 1:15-23

Note: Today’s Trinity paintings are: Sandro Botticelli’s “Holy Trinity” (1491-1493); Lucas Cranach the Elder’s “The Trinity” (1515); Giovanni Pietro Rizzoli’s (Il Giampietrino) “Christ with the Symbol of the Trinity” (16th century); and Hendrick van Balen’s “Holy Trinity” (1620s).