
By Keri O’Shea
A couple of years ago, I was fortunate enough to catch a theatre performance which made a sizable impression on me; this was an adaptation of a lesser-known H P Lovecraft story, ‘The Temple’, and the writer & performer behind this one-man show was Michael Sabbaton. I reviewed the show at the time and since then, I’ve become a big fan of Michael’s other work; his ambitious, atmospheric and pitch-perfect adaptations of Lovecraft’s stories deserve to be seen and enjoyed, so well do they capture the otherworldliness of the source material. I was interested to know more about Michael’s career so far and he’s been kind enough to give us this interview.
BAH: You’ve adapted several Lovecraft short stories so far…my first question is, where did the idea to adapt Lovecraft for the stage come from, and what sorts of challenges are involved with the process?
MS: Weeeel, it’s a bit of a tale to tell really and an unexpected one…
Back in March 2010, I was working for a theatre company for the whole month working with a close knit team devising a handful of short pieces for various projects. During this time, I was also waiting to see if I would be offered a part in a particular play for the long, summer tour that I had auditioned for earlier in the year. As it happened, I wasn’t offered a part in that play but in another one but after a bit of soul searching, I decided to turn this down as I felt it wasn’t really for me. Now, this is a tough decision for a jobbing actor as essentially you are turning down four months of secure work in an already overpopulated profession with not enough work to go around. Four months of company, four months of travel and four months of paying the rent but…I turned it down.
So, what to do was the next thought. Back on the audition trail, I supposed…but then I had another thought. It was one of those moments where you are kind of desperate and don’t think that logically save for having or rather needing to do something that you truly believed in. The thought was that I had always day dreamed about going to Edinburgh and doing a show in the festival. Why not? At this point, I had no knowledge of the logistics, the cost or anything for that matter to do with The Edinburgh Festival but the seed had been sown and a fire lit beneath it. I would at least think about it for a while.
I went into the town to find a bookshop. Originally I thought that I could perhaps do an adaptation of the Rudyard Kipling story, The Man Who Would Be King, as I had always loved the movie and I remembered reading the book years ago. Well, it turned out that the shop was out of Kipling but as I looked over the shelves, I came across this Lovecraft anthology with, The Call of Cthulhu, prominently on the front cover. At this point I had never read any Lovecraft and the only connection I had to him was a very distant teenage memory of an advert in White Dwarf magazine. The advert was for the Cthulhu based role playing game (never played it btw) and showed picture of an old haunted house (you know, like in Psycho) and all around it were weird tentacle like creatures and men in trilby hats so I got a kind of latent ‘dark Indiana Jones’ vibe from that first book and the instant visual memory that must have lingered in my mind since I was sixteen.
All I knew really was that the material was weird, science-fiction horror based and very VERY dark. It all sounded like it was up my street so I thought, why not? A one man play based on the classic, The Call of Cthulhu, to take to Edinburgh later that year. I won’t bore you with any more detail save that it all went ahead and did pretty well and since then I’ve never really wanted to do anything else.
In terms of challenges, there are many and thy are on-going. As far as the material and actual work are concerned, my main emphasis is to stay true to Lovecraft’s vision and depth of scope both artistically and philosophically. This is difficult in terms of marketing work such as this as well as trying to keep it ‘authentic’ and ‘real’. The material is obscure enough so it is tricky to try and convince commercial venues sometimes of its worth but I am determined that the work do justice to itself and its audience so we shall just have to hope that I can recruit a ‘Sabbaton Army’ (of the dead!) to support it all. Time will tell…
The other important thing to mention here is that all of these plays (wot I wrote) are definitely adaptations – that is to say, not just a literal throwing of Lovecraft’s original text onto the stage and hoping for the best. Theatre just doesn’t work like that because it’s not literature in the same way that a novel is not a play to be performed. They are two very different mediums and must be respected as such. What I try to do is create and maintain a concentrated and intense, character driven world where Lovecraft’s original ideas are re-worked, expanded and elaborated on. As an actor this is absolutely important to me – it ain’t storytelling!
Other challenges basically revolve around logistics issues and admin – making sure everything is done when it need to be done and to standard (I’m a terrible perfectionist!). I have always believed in a ‘total theatre’ attitude and an holistic practice so I really enjoy designing the whole show from costume, props and scenography to writing, music and sound design. Saying that, I’d love someone to come and save me from marketing and tour booking – trouble is, I’m always skint!
BAH: How have you so far selected the stories you have performed, and how difficult a task is this?
MS: ‘Ya know, it’s kinda difficult to remember to be honest as I tend to mash loads of ideas around at once but from out of the general maelstrom, one of Lovecraft’s stories emerges. Cthulhu was an easy choice because firstly, it was the only one I knew of at the time and secondly, I knew it was very well known so I hoped people would come. With The Temple, that came from just a random conversation with someone I met at a party who was a real Lovecraft fan with lots of story knowledge. I had said that I had this kind of submarine fixation and that I would love to do a ‘horror’ show based around that and he recommended The Temple. After I read it, I thought it was a perfect foundation for a dark, claustrophobic piece of madness…I started to think about a kind of Alien under the sea. The Statement of Randolph Carter started life as a montage of different stories but after a while The Statement started to dominate so it seemed obvious to change tack. I’m glad I did as I was really pleased with it, flipping the story ad telling it from Harley Warren’s perspective. Also it has the mad Arab, Abdul Al Hazrad introducing it so that was fun to do. I hope we can hear more from AAH in the future!

BAH: You are about to embark on the preparation of a show based on ‘Polaris’, one of HPL’s rather lesser-known tales and one of his earlier works. What attracted you to it?
MS: This new show, POLARIS, has been even more challenging so far and I feel this show will be a real stretch of what I and the story can do. It’s very short but when you start to unwrap it and follow certain references etc you start to uncover a giant rabbit hole that has taken my research to Earth circa one billion years BCE and up, into the stars. It’s the first in Lovecraft’s ‘Dream-Cycle’ works but is different to the others as it actually goes into the main character’s ancient past as opposed to directly travelling to the dream lands. Saying that, reality is certainly challenged and there are several connections with that and the mythos in general so I expect to form lots of connections. There’s much more work to do yet before I start to properly write it but I hope it will be quite an epic play. What attracts me to it is its scope for unwrapping one’s perception of reality, sense of self and place in ‘it all’. Everything can be questioned including our own sanity so it is quite a philosophical piece, I think. There are other aspects to it but these are the areas that interest me most.
BAH: In your opinion, why and how do solo performances such as yours so well suit the kinds of horror Lovecraft created?
MS: I think it’s the intensity and concentration of these ideas that allows Lovecraft’s world to come alive on stage. Lovecraft’s work is the horror of the mind and where that takes us – our larger, philosophical as well as psychological fears come true. It would be futile and silly to try to literally show those fears…they belong in the mind – the best special effects designer in the business!
I’m not a ‘story-teller’, I’m an actor and for me that means living through well designed and thought out characters in the moment of whatever they are experiencing and thinking. I don’t want to tell the audience a tale of what has ‘already happened’, I want them with the character RIGHT NOW. I want them feeling the weight of Francis Thurston’s terror and isolation, I want them trapped with Altberg’s madness in his sunken and stinking submarine and I want them with Harley Warren as he steps down into the rotting tomb. It’s not because I want the audience on a kind of cheap, theatrical ghost train ride – nothing could be further from the truth. I want them to think with and feel with the characters as things happen so they can live that Lovecraftian world and feel that level of cerebral fear. I like to create an intense world where these characters can really live through their predicaments. It is a strain though, I can tell you. To quote Hugh Jackman’s character in the movie, The Prestige, I don’t know if by the end of the performance, “I’m going to be the man in the box or the prestige…”!
BAH: If you had no constraints of time, costs or the other factors which impact upon a show, are there any particular tales – Lovecraft’s or otherwise – that you would especially like to adapt in future?
MS: Lots…I’d like to do a great space opera! I have been thinking about this for a while now but haven’t quite got there yet so will stay on it. One way or another, I’ll get there. That’s the thing with me – I’m a bit obsessive really. I really want to do The Shadow Over Innsmouth. I have several ideas for this but the thing I want to do would costs loads so not sure if that will happen but you never know. Also, quite fancy doing a whole epic show telling Johansen’s story from The Call of Cthulhu. In my Cthulhu show, I never physically told his tale although Johansen’s presence is in every scene really. Still, I’d like to get a whole ensemble together to do the ‘terror from the seas’ – Johansen’s discovery of R’lyeh, Cthulhu rising (not sure how I’d do this yet!) and the fate of the crew. I’d still like to do, The Man Who Would be King still too. Well, you never know…
Oh, and Sinbad – I used to love those movies!
BAH: Lovecraft notoriously disliked the cinema…nonetheless, I’m interested to find out whether you have watched and enjoyed any adaptations of HPL’s work. Are there any film or TV versions of his tales which you enjoy?
MS: I didn’t know that! Still, I’ve always said that I’m really no Lovecraft expert – only through the work I’ve done. Mmmmm….let’s see. It’s a bit cloudy really. I might have seen a bit of Sam Neill in, Re Animator (I think), and Dagon. Both not my cup of tea, I’m afraid…just came out as straight horror movies to me. Enjoyable in their own right but not Lovecraftian at all, I’d say…not dark enough!
BAH: You have spent some time working in recent months on a ‘Mechanical Turk’ concept, which I understand has been put to one side for the moment. What can you tell us about this project, and do you still intend to resurrect it?
MS: Yes. Yessssss…Ah, The Turk. Her has been with me as an idea in one form or another for quite a few years now. I’m fascinated by his real life story – an 18th Century human-sized automaton that actually played chess. It’s a story full of mystery and intrigue and raises issues of machine intelligence et al – so Ex Machina in wood, cogs and brass…
Thing is…in the last round of research I did on the project, I found myself more interested in the last, Barnum-like owner of The Turk. His name was Johann Maezel and I really have a sad empathy towards him…showman to showman. So, it looks like this is where the story is taking me but I don’t think I can call it, The Turk, as the focus has now changed somewhat. So, any suggestions – answers on a postcard please! Anyway, I really want to do this show but not sure when the true ‘face of The Turk’ will reveal itself yet. Mmmmm…
BAH: Do you have any ambitions to work in film?
MS: I would love to. Nobody ever asks!
(would also like to make film too…)
BAH: When you are on stage – how aware are you of the audience in front of you? Does this impact upon your performance at all?
MS: I’m aware of them but they kind of become part of me. We are all the character. We are the collective consciousness. If I’m doing my job right, there should be no real distinction at all in terms of perception. Very Zen!
BAH: What, for you, has been the high point of your acting career so far, and what else do you want to achieve?
MS: Tricky one but I think that the high point was doing that first solo show in Edinburgh. Just so empowering creating and producing something yourself. Ironically, it’s all I ever wanted to do really. In terms of achieving more…basically I’d just like to continue making new work on my terms. The only thing is that it is hard to get established and keep going – it’s not necessarily a money issue (although that does come into it) but getting venues to take the work. The only thing is to keep on keeping on and not to wallow. I’d love to do some film and TV work but I’m not sure if that will happen as my career has taken this independent turn – which has its pros and cons like everything else. Still, you never know what’s around the corner…

BAH: And finally…tell us what we can do to help bring your performances to a theatre near us…
MS: I guess just spread the word. I’m an independent artist so word of mouth is the power behind getting it out there. Apart from following, liking, subscribing, commenting, tweeting, re-tweeting, linking, sharing et al (I’m on Facebook, Twitter and Youtube), anything to keep the social media flowing as I am rubbish at it, maybe you could write to your local venue with my details. It all helps. And…if anyone could offer me a floor for the night anywhere whilst I’m on da road that would be ace as accommodation is sooo expensive. Oh, and maybe buy an AUDIO VERSION of the shows or a signed poster from my site…Oh, I’m such a tart!
BAH: Thank-you very much for taking the time to talk to us, Michael!
MS: It’s been my absolute pleasure, Keri. Thank you!
You can support Michael by visiting his official webpage, his Facebook page and of course Twitter. Spread the word!

As for the role of the witch in general in these communities, we have discussed already how Puritan society – this brave new world – had yet taken with it age-old beliefs about magic which it fell back on in its frequent times of difficulty and despair. In many respects, what communities saw as malign interference was blamed for equally age-old phenomena: blighted crops, ailing livestock, curdled milk, spoiled beer, poor weather; these are all things which could harm the progress of an agrarian society such as the Puritans had established but constituted natural, yet deeply frustrating events which could still be pinned on outsider influences. Witches were frequently blamed for such calamities, and hundreds of women (and men, and children, but primarily women) were tried and often executed for their ‘crimes’. Witches could also, we are told, cause animals to behave in uncharacteristic ways, such as being “taken with strange fits” or “behaving in a strange or affrighting manner” (Witchcraft Papers 1:94). All of these things could spell doom for farms which were meant to be completely self-sufficient.
With regards to the prevalence of witches in New England, there are still further reasons why the ideas of enemies-within began to take hold there. One interpretation is that witchcraft accusations became prevalent where a widow, wife or daughter stood to inherit large amounts of land and property. Whether the intentions were overt or not, naming a woman as a witch made for an easy way to grab and distribute material wealth from ‘unorthodox’ families which had subverted the preferred order of things, in a society where means were still limited. Whilst not a direct factor in The Witch, true, it’s yet more evidence of the precarious, often ruthless society in which their real-life contemporaries existed. Add sex, sexuality and sexual jealousy to this kind of mix, and it isn’t difficult to see how and why women often lived particularly risky lives in 17th Century America; in danger of plausible accusations by well-respected members of communities, in danger when ostensibly in a position of financial gain, in danger of sexual attention, life was hardly straightforward for many. By the same token, for those who really believed they had sealed a covenant with Satan (and I believe many did think this) then who can blame them for wanting it? The promise of ease and fulfillment away from their mundane world of toil and threat must have seemed a welcome proposal for many, whatever the cause.
Today, most of us would see this in rational terms, as a body and mind worn down with mistreatment and stifling social roles finding an hysterical outlet which would have seemed, to witnesses, something completely unnatural. Add hearsay to fright and voila, you have something recordable, transmittable and imitable, but no doubt exaggerated, hence so many possession yarns which fit the same bill down through the centuries which can still be used in a 21st Century setting to scare modern audiences.
Ultimately, however, it’s Thomasin who is the prize. Everything which befalls her family leads up to her final temptation, whilst also leading to the film’s striking final scenes. Contemporary figures for Thomasin in the 1630s are rather fewer than you might expect however, and this was generally the case. The main demographic group for accusations of witchcraft was women of maturer years, around forty as a general rule of thumb, and possibly due to the factor mentioned above – inheritance issues. A reasonable number of younger women are on record, though there are not many of them. There was, however, a young girl called Elizabeth Knapp who could conceivably be a source of inspiration for the character of Thomasin…
We shouldn’t underestimate how important something like the Malleus Maleficarum was; it set the bar for the treatment of witches for all of the subsequent ‘witch crazes’ which followed, and its words on what witches did (and why they did it) can certainly be seen in 17th Century New England. For instance, the book relates the words of an alleged witch and child murderer, who told her accuser “with our spells we kill them in their cradles or even when they are sleeping by their parents’ side…then we secretly take them from their graves, and cook them in a cauldron, until the whole flesh comes away from the bones to make a soup which may easily be drunk. Of the more solid matter we make an unguent which is of virtue to help us in our arts and pleasures and our transportations.” This unguent, then, was applied to the broomsticks of legend (the same witch also mentions enchanting chairs in the same way) and used for flight. It’s an idea about witchcraft which has lasted over five hundred years so far, so we shouldn’t be surprised that it makes sense within the remit of Puritan society too, and is referenced shortly after the baby disappears in our film. The Devil and his followers couldn’t create matter (only God had that power) but he could certainly help his practitioners to break the rules of the natural world, and – in keeping with a subtext of witchcraft belief that witches abhorred conventional gender roles, including motherhood and child-rearing – dispatching an infant would have been little concern to them, but monstrous to mainstream society.
Likewise, witches were believed to have the ability to shape-shift, taking on animal form; they were also frequently linked with ‘familiars’, animals which usually lived with the witches and worked on their behalf for the fee of suckling from them (and there’s that monstrous spin on motherhood again, folks). In The Witch, the family first hunt a hare which seems to have some sort of supernatural significance; they fail to catch it, and it lures father and son deeper into the unfamiliar woods near which they have settled, whilst also later re-appearing near the farmstead, inevitably a portent of far worse things to come. An association between witches and creatures such as rats, cats and hares (as well as alleged hybrid species, unrecognisable to witnesses) has been of longer duration, and the Malleus Maleficarum describes “a workman [who] was one day chopping some wood to burn in his house. A large cat suddenly appeared and began to attack him, and when he was driving it off, another even larger one came and attacked him with the first more fiercely. And when he again tried to drive them away, behold, three of them together attacked him, jumping up at his face, and biting and scratching his legs. In great fright and, as he said, more panic-stricken than he had ever been, he crossed himself and, leaving his work, fell upon the cats, which were swarming over the wood and again leaping at his face and throat, and with difficulty drove them away by beating one on the head, another on the legs, and another on the back. After the space of an hour, while he was again engaged upon his task, two servants of the town magistrates came and took him as a malefactor and led him into the presence of the bailiff or judge…the judge broke into these words: ‘You most wicked of men, how can you not acknowledge your crime? At such a time on such a day you beat three respected matrons of this town, so that they lie in their beds unable to rise or to move!'” Eventually, the hapless man is able to prove that the ‘respected matrons’ and the animals are one and the same. Ideas about animal familiars certainly persist into the Hopkins days in England, and cross the Atlantic too (as late as the 19th Century, the infamous story of the Bell Witch hauntings tell of a strange, large hare on his property which farmer John Bell initially attempted to shoot. This creature seemed to herald a widespread array of supernatural phenomena at the Bell family home, much of which later centred upon alleged visitations by a malign witch, often called ‘Kate’.)
JLH: Totally. I didn’t want to go full ‘Bill & Ted’ metalbro. Instead I wanted to show that, despite the clothes and tastes in extreme music, metalheads are just normal people. I was definitely coming from a fan’s point of view. It’s weird, I keep finding subconscious metal references in the film, not things I intended. After Lemmy passed, someone said ‘Great you had that Motörhead joke in the film’. I didn’t know what they were talking about – then they pointed out that a character dies after getting an engine dropped on his skull. I had no idea.
It’s not long before Birdemic begins to reveal its noteworthiness in other respects: the opening credits misspell ‘Cast’ as ‘Casts’, for starters, and then with no further ado we’re treated to an excruciating diner scene in which we are introduced to key players Rod (Alan Bagh) and Nathalie (Whitney Moore, who apparently doubled up her role to become make-up artist after the first two make-up artists quit). The film’s first shock revelation now becomes apparent: director James Nguyen only has one camera. This variously means that the same scene has to be stopped and repeated to get a modicum of footage together for editing, which goes some way towards excusing the casts for seeming so pained and awkward. This lack of kit really comes into its own during a scene intended to represent a high-powered business meeting, but more on that later: the point for the time being is, Rod likes Nathalie, and in the universe of Birdemic this makes it acceptable to terrifyingly try to chat her up, eventually wearing her down with glassy eye-contact and an inability to read a menu in a normal human way. Some by-the-by commentary on a TV introduces the theme of the environment going awry, which is as far as we get with context, but, whatever; Rod is having a good day otherwise. He has scared Nathalie into a date, secured a million-dollar deal at his telesales job and chatted to a man about getting a solar panel fitted to his house. It doesn’t get any better than this. It’s the American Dream. A ‘love scene’ ensues where everyone stays clothed, but at least it gets the main characters into a room so that we’re ready for the birds to attack first thing in the morning.
The somewhat strained marriage of Muriel (Barbara Steele) and Stephen Arrowsmith (Paul Muller) comes to a head after he departs on a fake business trip. Not only is Muriel having a secret affair with David the gardener (Rik Battaglia), but Arrowsmith himself is also having nefarious romantic liaisons with housemaid Solange (Helga Line). When the former get discovered romping in the opulent greenhouse, Arrrowsmith’s spite erupts and culminates in chaining the couple to a wall before giving the gardener a beating and his wife a good ole fashioned flagellating! But the shackled Muriel turns the tables by revealing she has altered her all important will to ensure her estate (obviously including the castle of the piece) all goes to her stepsister. A crude divorce of sorts follows when Arrowsmith torturously disposes of the pair. His convoluted secondary plan involves marrying his wife’s semi sibling, Jenny, who we learn has had a history of mental health problems. Merely coil her mind with some hallucinogens and voila, he will become her legal executor, thus taking control of the estate. Jenny, also played by Steele but now sporting platinum tresses as opposed to her more natural raven locks, now enters the narrative. Fans of Steele will be no strangers to this archetypal duality that almost became her trademark. It’s an absorbing performance as she drives the picture to its conclusion. With a healthy run time of 105 minutes, there is plenty of room for the tale to take many a twist and turn flitting from a sinister thriller to the supernatural suspense. The climax itself is an extravagantly satisfying one with Steele in splendid form.
Let’s get one thing straight before we start here: Beyond the Valley of the Dolls is absolutely ‘NOT A SEQUEL TO VALLEY OF THE DOLLS. IT IS WHOLLY ORIGINAL…’ and so continues the on-screen legend as the earliest frames of the latter movie start to roll. Are we convinced? Well, Valley of the Dolls – the Swedish original – had emerged three years previously, with identical subject matter, as well as being loosely based on the same novel. Even without doing a bit of digging on Russ Meyer’s own spin on the effects of the fame machine here, it would seem from this protest-too-much declaration that he’s either a fibber, delusional, or perhaps more likely, simultaneously making fun of his film and us even before we really get going. (Turns out that his film was intended as a straight-up parody; more on the success of this later.)
Onto the film itself. It’s all about an all-girl band eking out a reasonable living playing live, albeit with one eye on the bright lights of LA. The LA of their dreams is represented to us, by the way, via a montage of landscapes, sheer fabrics – and boobs. Whether this really screams ‘musical success’ is by-the-by, and so Kelly (Dolly Read), Casey (Cynthia Myers) and Petronella (Marcia McBroom), together with manager Harris (David Gurian) head there, soon meeting up with Kelly’s long-lost millionairess Aunt Susan, a trusting soul who works in advertising (?) who immediately offers to give Kelly a huge share of the money, to the horror of her financial adviser – who has a point, let’s be honest. Still, Susan is a well-connected woman about town, and she offers to introduce the gang to all the best parties on the scene. News of the band’s prowess catches the attention of a key party host, Z-Man (John LaZar) and soon the re-named Carrie Nations are on for the big time, all under Z-Man’s watchful eye of course. Sadly, it can’t all be digging it and impromptu performances, even though a lot of it is: relationships suffer, greed kicks in, and the corrupting power of hedonism does its thing.
We start with what appears to be a death scene: a young man lies, awkwardly sprawled and motionless, across a main road, having just fallen from his motorbike. Here’s the first surprise the film has to offer – he isn’t dead, but he really wanted to be. Rob (Cian Barry) has just attempted suicide in the wake of the death of his beloved girlfriend Nina, who herself died in a traffic accident. All he wanted to do was to join her; he fails, however, and eventually returns to his humdrum job at a local supermarket, where he has attracted the attention of co-worker and paramedic student Holly (Abigail Hardingham). Where most people would tiptoe around the bereaved, Holly is actively interested by what she sees as Rob’s brooding intensity and dedication to his love; she fantasises about what it would be like to fuck someone like that. Life does after all go on, Holly’s clumsy attentions are rewarded and before too long, romance blossoms for this somewhat damaged pair of people.
A much safer way of procuring these scarcities was at film fairs up and down the country. Leisure centres nationwide would play host to these assemblages of horror devotees, looking to buy or sell macabre memorabilia. Traders would display their merchandise with a little round “BBFC 18” sticker placed on the outer cellophane of its packaging. The gesture seemed enough to give them a dubious licence to sell imports. How much knowledge Trading Standards possessed regarding the Laserdiscs country of origin was unclear, but with pirate tapes being the main focus of the odd raid, the little red dot (probably also bootlegged!) clinging to the wrapping seemed to suffice.
Clive Barker’s classic Hellraiser got the deluxe box set treatment seven years after its theatrical debut when released by Lumivision. Limited to 2500 pressings worldwide, the double disc set offered a re-mastered transfer in its original aspect ratio of 1.85:1. With the aforementioned CLV and CAV formats cleverly employed, it meant the gruesome culmination of Frank being hooked and ripped apart could be devoured frame by frame. The concept of ‘extras’ was an innovative one at the time, so the deleted scenes, interviews and audio commentary by Mr Barker also significantly added to its appeal.
The advancement of technology means Laserdisc players appear more redundant then ever these days. But while Dominoes Pizza et all did a roaring trade as pizza boxes were recycled as LD packaging for Ebay sales, horror fans by and large held on to the gems of their collections. How foolish it would be to part with the exclusive red pressing of the uncut Evil Dead 2? And who was heartless enough to flog their copy of Cannibal Ferox that, was not only gorgeously presented, but also had enclosed a 7 inch vinyl record containing the soundtrack and tongue in cheek ‘vomit bag’!





So far, so familiar, but despite being another exploration of a person who is respectable enough by day yet has the sort of secret sexual mores that would get you locked up, Nekromantik 2 is quite different in the way it plays out. In the first film, we have a relationship (between Betty and Rob) which is seemingly all pinned on her aberrant tastes, and his success – or failure – to please her. It is Betty’s exit which precipitates the worst of Rob’s excesses afterwards. In the sequel however, Monika’s struggle is between her obviously unorthodox desire for the dead, and her new (living) boyfriend Mark (Mark Reeder), a man she seems rather fond of. Much of the film follows their developing romance; as things progress, Monika finds it more and more difficult to stop her nefarious activities spilling over into everyday life. It’s by no means a dialogue-heavy venture, this film, nor is it a character study in any conventional sense, but it’s definitely far more about the inner life of a young woman who seems, to all intents and purposes, respectable. There’s a broader sense of place and time here, perhaps because Buttgereit knew he’d achieved a lot of the shocks possible via the subject matter in the first film – so that it made sense to explore things differently.