By Keri O’Shea
I’ve always thought that the title Blacula is a bit of a shame. Sure, so far as the filmmakers were concerned it made for a nicely blatant sell, and you can hardly accuse them of false advertising, but to my mind it has the hokey sort of feel to it that immediately encourages you to lump the film in with a number of other titles which have very little to do with it in terms of style or content. If people bought this because of the pun and thought it meant pure comedy, then chances are they’d be a little disappointed – because what we have here is a surprisingly refreshing entrant into the vampire movie genre, one which (whispers it) is more successful than the tail-end of the Hammer output around, ooh I don’t know, also around 1972 for instance…
We pick up the film’s plot in 1780, at Castle Dracula. The Count has esteemed guests from the continent of Africa, one Prince Mamuwalde (William Marshall) and his wife, Luva. Mamuwalde, during his first visit to Europe, wants the assistance of this noble to help him in his mission to suppress the slave trade; well, Dracula proves himself to be a tad unreconstructed, and not exactly amenable to Mamuwalde’s cause. Not only does he reject it out of hand, but he decides he’d quite like to enslave the African royals himself – though the slavery he chooses is of a long tenure for the prince, whom Dracula punishes for his audacity by condemning him to become a vampire before locking him into a coffin – where he predicts the hunger for blood will send him mad. Luva is entombed alongside him to die a natural death. Some welcome, huh.
We move forward nearly two hundred years, and Dracula seems to be long-gone. The castle is by now being being cleared of its furniture by two anachronistically camp antiques dealers who of course decide they want to take a peek into the coffin they’ve just requisitioned. Mamuwalde awakes, finds himself loose in LA, and soon the mysterious casualties are piling up. He’s far from an indiscriminate killer, however, and when he spies what to him looks like the reincarnation of his long-lost wife, he does everything he can to be with her – setting them both on a precarious path.
This is a film which, in keeping with the puntastic title, starts life as a bit tonally odd in places. The familiar vampire legend at the beginning of the film cedes into an improbably funky animated opening credit sequence, and as per films which come under either the sizeable umbrella of blaxploitation or even a fair amount of 70s movies in general, there are a few protracted club scenes. However, it’s not all about the novelty value and Blacula settles into being a reasonably effective, at-times deftly inspired horror film. It doesn’t just play for laughs, and despite there being plenty going on in terms of social commentary, it’s a lot more subtle than you might expect from a film called ‘Blacula’.
Key to this effectiveness is the star performance by William Marshall, a superb actor who plays this role absolutely in earnest (and to do anything else would have killed the film outright). As we learn from the extras, it was Marshall’s suggestion that his character should be an African prince: invoking the ghost of the slave trade could have been a dicey move in terms of plot development, but in Marshall’s hands it has just enough credence to work as a reason for Mamuwalde being in Europe and meeting up with that reactionary old bloodsucker. Marshall does a very good job of balancing the legacy of the traditional vampire (with a stature and a sonorous voice which is more than a match for Christopher Lee, all told) with the demands of a contemporary setting and modern cast: his encounter with the shrill and outraged Juanita, who nearly runs him over in her cab, is a moment of pure movie gold, and he works the charm convincingly throughout the film too, making for an effective romantic lead in his scenes with his reincarnated love Tina (Vonita McGee). Make-up notwithstanding, because daubing him up to look like more of a classic werewolf than a vampire seems an odd choice, Mamuwalde is an interesting vampire. He’s a contested figure, one who can easily sustain our interest throughout.
As I say, it would be a real shame if anyone either back in ’72 or now bought this expecting a zany, overblown horror comedy. Yes, there are a few moments of humour, but really speaking Blacula is a well-paced film which brings something new and refreshing to a genre which, even forty years ago, found itself being in serious need of an overhaul. Solid performances, entertaining writing and engaging ideas make this a very worthwhile film. Oh, and, as alluded to in the extras, wouldn’t it do anyone good to think that a young Francis Ford Coppola took the idea for a vampire seeking his reincarnated lost love from Blacula? It was probably Dark Shadows, sure, but I mean, come on…
Probably the only thing which partly derails the equally-watchable sequel Scream Blacula Scream! is that, in essentials, it’s the same plot as before, and despite the presence of the indomitable Pam Grier in the film (as a voodoo priestess, no less) you find yourself noticing more of the similarities between the films than the differences. This is a tad unfair, as in may respects the later film has even more potential to be innovative, kicking off with an ingenious voodoo cult overthrow plot which sees the unscrupulous Willis Daniels (Richard Lawson) trying to cement his position as cult leader by hexing his rival Lisa (Grier). Unfortunately for Willis, the bones he uses in his blood ritual are Mamuwalde’s remains, and this brings him back from the grave again. After this, to a degree it’s business as usual: Mamuwalde’s insatiable appetite leads to a host of (rather creepy) vampires coming to be, and whilst the authorities close in on Mamuwalde, he enlists Lisa’s help – though interestingly, he wants her to help him get rid of his immortality, not preserve it.
Using the voodoo angle is certainly an inspired move, and Grier proves that she is more than a match for Marshall’s talents here. One can’t help but wonder, with the greatest respect to Vonita McGee, what would have resulted had Grier been cast opposite Marshall in the first film, as she really is a superb actress, and it seems as though she would have made an excellent romantic lead. Still, here she gets to take on a nicely-nuanced role, and the supporting cast injects just the right amount of what I can only call vivacity: the newly-undead Willis bemoaning the fact that his new condition makes it impossible for him to admire his ‘threads’ in the mirror anymore is a nice touch indeed!
Although not forging ahead in the same way as the first Blacula, Scream Blacula Scream! is in its own right an engaging piece of film. Jointly, this new release of both movies on Blu-ray will make a welcome addition to the horror fan’s shelf. It’s topped off by a plethora of extras too, including both trailers, an introduction by writer Kim Newman and a 32-page booklet with rare archival material.
Blacula – the Complete Collection will be released by Eureka! Entertainment on 27th October 2014.