Thematic double feature tonight, and man is it great to finally have the chilly weather and torrential rain putting me in that comfortably spooky mood!


The Bat (1926)

Rounding out my revisiting of classic Old Dark House films, we have the Old Dark House film known far all the wrong reasons. The Bat is almost entirely known for being Bill Finger's primary influence for Batman (along with The Shadow). Gothic cityscapes, a seemingly supernatural character dressed as a bat, the acrobatics, the rope climbing, even the bat signal...it's all there in this 1926 classic, but I think that legacy gets in the film's way more than it helps it.

This is truly a damned good film, and even I forget that because it's hard to put the proto Batman thing out of one's mind. Roland West's directing, the casting, the acting, and the lavish setting (pretty sure they used an actual castle and not a set for this film!), as well as a frankly eerie and terrifying villain who is so brilliant and original all get lost on us because, "Hey, it's an early Batman!" as opposed to, "Woah! That's just a darn clever and creepy character! Who comes up with this stuff?"

Anyway, the only true problem I have with this film isn't really Roland West's fault. The surviving copies of this film (at least the versions I've seen) appear to be missing small moments of footage, which wouldn't be a big deal except that this is a fast-paced film which sometimes jumps so that characters are in the wrong room, or suddenly have information that they shouldn't have.

Also, no fair that the Bat's alter ego (not spoiling it here) can appear on camera mere seconds after we saw it leaping across rooftops looking totally chill and without a bead of sweat on their face or an undisturbed hair on their head. Kind of a cheat.

There are a million versions of this film out there, but I'm of the belief that the soundtrack truly matters when watching a silent film. This is my favorite soundtrack version, although it contains a few more moments of missing footage than other versions I've seen:





The Bat Whispers (1930)



How many directors have ever taken the opportunity to remake their own film? As the title might suggest, The Bat Whispers is a remake of The Bat for the age of talking film, and yet West brings a lot more than that to this reimagining. Sure, only four years had passed since the original film's release, but West makes outstanding use of superior, lighter-weight cameras with tighter focuses for better light contrast, as well as some of the most creepily impressive tracking shots I've ever seen. Whereas the camera of the first film was firmly anchored in place, this one moves with all the supernatural aesthetic of the character for which the film is named.

And yet this film has its trade-offs. The cast is nowhere near as perfect as in the original. I guess most of the original actors were either unwilling to come back or didn't have the right voices for a talking film, but these new folks are far less unforgettable in their roles. Additionally, the more fantastic elements of The Bat himself (you know, the aspects that made this film famous and inspired one of the comic book medium's greatest properties) are significantly scaled down. The dude doesn't even have bat ears anymore!

I truly wish I could intersplice the atmospheric shots and dream-like tracking shots of the 1930 film into the 1926 film. Both are unforgettable must-sees in their own rights, but If I had to choose one, I'd definitely stick with the 1926 original.

The Vampire Bat (1933)



I'm a huge fan of all three horror films that paired Lionel Atwill and Fay Wray, and yet I don't particularly care for either Atwill or Wray. They just seemed to choose good projects.

This film works hard to carry the feel of a Universal film, even stealing several of its notable non-starring actors, and yet it lacks both the atmospheric visuals and Karl Freund's cinematography that truly made those films feel distinct. What really steals the show is Dwight Frye (who NEVER disappoints) in the role of Herman, a creepy, mentally disabled man who just might be a vampire and/or psychopathic murderer. Herman is ultimately what keeps me coming back to this film again and again as he falls victim to a crazed, superstitious mob, but the true tragedy is that the film keeps going after that point, assuming I give a damn about Atwill and Wray. Once Herman checks out, I do too.

Side note: there is neither a vampire nor a bat to be found in a film entitled "The Vampire Bat."

I love The Death Kiss! I got it on DVD from Sinister Cinema many years ago and I used to watch it on a regular basis. I think I still have it. David Manners is much better here than he was in Dracula (see also The Miracle Woman (with Barbara Stanwick) and The Last Flight (with Helen Chandler)). I also like Vince Barnett (who you might remember getting thrown off the roof in Bowery at Midnight) as the studio security guard who's learning to be a detective through a correspondence course. Adrienne Ames is great! Not to mention Bela and van Sloan.

shaxper & Hoosier X


I'm thinking of watching THE DEATH KISS in a day or two. Both write-ups by both of you got me convinced !!!

Sort of in the same vein as Death Kiss is "I Killed that Man!" with Ricardo Cortez and Joan Woodbury. It's another low-budget thriller with an overly complicated murder method, but Cortez (cinema's first Sam Spade!) and Woodbury (the tiny queen in Bride of Frankenstein) pull it off - barely! 

Dracula (1931)



It's been too long since I last watched this one, and @mechagodzilla's recent review left me with a strong desire to get back to it. There's so very much to say about this one, but perhaps my strongest opinion about the film is a negative one. This will never be a favorite horror film of mine. It does so very very much right; heck, it rekindled the horror genre amidst the decline of the Weimar Republic in Germany. And yet, despite the film's tremendous strengths, its greatest weakness lies with the basic plot of Bram Stoker's work itself: the very best scenes come at the start. The first thirty minutes or so of Dracula are brilliantly engaging as we are caught along with Renfield (Harker in the novel) in the lair of the spider, not quite sure we should run for help until it's far too late. It's atmospheric and terrifying. In contrast, the second half of the film, set mostly in a posh living room as people in tuxedos talk at each other more than anything else, can't help but disappoint.

The Tod Browning film does much to play with/improve upon Stoker's original plot (I adore the twist of having us mistake Renfield for a protagonist, only to witness his later transformation!), a tradition followed by Terence Fisher's 1958 film, and even Werner Herzog's 1979 re-imagining of F.W. Murnau's Nosferatu. It seems that the aspect of the Dracula legacy that impresses me most is how each film treatment deals with the flaws in the source material. Still, while Browning's Dracula may be the best film version out there (honestly, I have such a hard time choosing), it's still woefully uneven and not a film I'm hungry to ride out to the end the way I am when watching James Whale's Frankenstein. Don't get me wrong -- I love this film, and there's a lot I continue to love into the second half (Edward Van Sloane's Van Helsing is just so...unusual), but there's a certain disappointment and fatigue that always sets in for me during the second half, even in spite of an outstanding cast and director.

That's so kind of you, @mechagodzilla. It's still an amazing film and one I'll always enjoy. It just seems like everyone else likes it better.

In contrast, White Zombie remains one of my favorite horror films of all time (in spite of it's many obvious weaknesses), and one of the things the film does right is that it's structured as Dracula in reverse. We begin in the posh living room with the people in tuxedos and build up to the conflict in the atmospheric castle.

It's far from the only thing I love about WZ, but it's certainly a factor.