dremble wedge

To be fair to Meikle (although I haven't read his book on VP) those rumours have been floating around for some time. In Victoria Price's biography of her father she doesn't dismiss them but says she doesn't know one way or the other.

Chris Fluffy

m35541

Greatly enjoyed reading your post and am glad you found stuff to agree with. More below...

Absolutely right. However, while I understand why people cite 57-65 as Hammer's golden period in terms of the quality its horror output (this is evident in so many definable ways), personal taste leads me to regard 68-69 as Hammer's horror peak. For me, the quartet of Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed, Dracula Has Risen From The Grave, The Devil Rides Out and Taste The Blood of Dracula are quintessential Hammer -- the production quality of these movies is just perfect, pure Gothic bombast but in a more plastic (arguably comicbook) 1960s way rather than the, perhaps, more mannered voice of previous films. And I seem to be one of the few people who like most Hammer horror output to the very end: Hands Of The Ripper (what a finale!), Doctor Jekyll & Sister Hyde (the way everyone imagines Whitechapel to have been), and even the last three Dracula movies. When I first saw Seven Golden Vampires, I nearly leapt out of my chair with excitement -- so much fun! Though, I do share Michael Carreras' opinion that Kronos just wasn't right for Hammer.

I haven't seen the Price book but will give it a miss should it cross my path. I do have the Midnight Marquee book on Price but haven't got round to reading it yet.

Yes. I once had chance to speak to Meikle and he came across as provocative and opinionated by nature. He clearly loves the genre but I think his personality shows through too much. Maybe it's tough love!

I don't mind the absence of Kinsey's viewpoint so much. I've read so many movie books now that I have no time for titles padded with either reviews or synopses. If there is opinion, I like to see it justified (almost in the style of academic debate). One of the things I love about LSoH is that it lets the people who WERE Hammer speak for themselves. There's bound to be errors of memory and conflicts of opinion but it wouldn't be right for LSoH to "referee" them (and it would risk deterring other potential interviewees). But, as I say, these days I'm more interested in histories (preferably anecdotal from those involved) than editorial.

Now if only my ordered CD of the Dracula AD 72 soundtrack would hurry up and arrive through the post...

asiamiles

I'm surprised this is only mentioned once in this thread. It was highly thought of when it was published and for most people probably covers everything they'd need to know about the company. It's also well illustrated and printed on nice stock. If you just want one book on Hammer on your bookshelf then "The Hammer Story" is surely the one to have, and even if you later feel you want to go further (eg. "LSoH") then it still makes for an ideal starting point, and will never seem redundant.

cesare

I echo the applause for the Hearn/Barnes HAMMER STORY, though am surprised to see it described as 'lightweight'. On the contrary: it's absolutely packed with hard information and - unlike all other Hammer books bar Kinsey's - the information is accurate across the board.

Dr Amicus

How could I not mention the Hearn / Barnes? An impressive book in many ways, and if you just want a good overview of Hammer - with lots of cracking pictures - this is the one to get. It's the easiest to dip in and out of, as it's organised on a film by film basis in discreet sections - as a HISTORY of Hammer though, I'd prefer Kinsey or Meikle as cover-to-cover reads (with the proviso for occasionally double checking facts!).

The pictures are good though - and it's much better laid out then Dark Side's Amicus book.

Moving on to Price - I read about half of Meikle's book. I can't remember why I didn't finish it as the later sections were more relevant to my research and thesis! And I was rather enjoying it. However, I'm sure I remember just after Victoria Price's book came out that I saw a news report (on Ceefax?) saying she'd just had confirmation about her father's bisexuality from Christopher Lee. Apparently they used to joke about it. I think her response was along the lines of 'well, you could have told me before I finished the book!'.

m35541

Whilst I don't disagree with you on quality (and 1968 certainly was a good year for hammer with From the Grave one of their most successful fims ever and they certainly would not have seen themselves in "decline") I think the point many people make is that in the early 1970's Hammer were essentially out of control and had green lighted too many pictures via independent producers that it was all bound to go wrong. If you look at the 1970-1971 output, individually we have some decent films here but collectively it's too many Victorian-set traditional Gothic horrors.

You then get to the argument as to whether the collapse of Hammer was "inevitable" or whether if they had "modernised" they would have survived. No-one seems to actually say what they should have "modernised" to but I always take it as meaning - what would have happened in they had made, say, Crucible of Terror and Frightmare (to take two contemporary-set new style British horrors) instead of, say, Demons of the Mind and Twins of Evil.

To my mind, it wouldn't have mattered as mostly what was left of the UK film industry collapsed in the early to mid 1970's after the withdrawal of American funding. And then we had a recession, rise in oil prices, power cuts and the 3 day week. One has to remember that British horror film production had bucked the trend of declining film audiences and film production throughout the 1960's - due to the Americans mostly.

However, i don't think you can apply this hindsight back to 1960 as meikle says and imply hammer were on a downward curve from then on. They clearly weren't. Back in 1960 they've had probably been amazed to think they had another 12 years of making horror films still in them (they'd only been doing it for 3).

Lord Brett

I would say that Hammer did amazingly well to struggle on till the eighties. A good comparison is the German popular film industry, which had a long-running series of Edgar Wallace film adaptations that interestingly mirrored Hammer. Hammer gave us English actors playing central Europeans in horror movies, while in central Europe they were playing English characters in horror-tinged thrillers.

Like the Hammer films, the Wallace movies were, and remain, much-loved, but the industry in Germany also virtually collapsed around 1972, and production of the remaining few Wallace films was farmed out to Italy.

Hammer might have survived as a makor fil-making force in the mid-seventies had virtually every other producers in the UK not decided to jump on the horror movie bandwagon. The number of British horrors made in the early-to-mid seventies is quite staggering

With our surrent economic troubles, I think we are getting a better perspective on how long-established brands and whole industries can be just swept away.

Chris Fluffy

I'm not sure Hammer were "out of control" per se. By the early 70s, as you say, production money was scarce, leading Hammer to "play safe" to a degree. But I think the real killer for Hammer was that most of their best creative people had left by the early 70s and the new core staff simply weren't up to the job. The nexus of Michael Carreras/Christopher Wicking stands out in this respect. They seemed caught between two stools of (1) relying on diminishing brands without knowing how to update them (either in terms of production techniques or script content), and (2) not having a clue what was happening in contemporary horror. To run Devil A Daughter alongside Frightmare, Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a particularly telling experience. Likewise, while Dracula A.D. 72 opts to hide Dracula in a church (and Satanic in a block of flats), Night Stalker (one of the best horror movies ever made) puts Skorzeny in direct conflict with the LAPD.

Well, I've already touched on this. The collapse of Hammer was not inevitable but I think it was under Michael Carreras. Hammer did need to modernise either in terms of content or technique. I think even the gothic was viable in a more modern form of presentation. Count Yorga was hardly a quantum leap forward but even that movie presents a more visceral take on the Dracula character. Strangely, over the last 30 years gothic has moved to certificate 12, bloated CGI fantasies as if horror should be the preserve of the present day. I don't accept this and can't understand why someone has not brought a raw edge back to the genre -- which is how it was perceived when it all kicked off with Curse of Frankenstein. Again, I believe Hammer was creatively failing in the early 70s and employing producers like Clemens was hardly the solution.

I actually don't agree with this. The end of American funding is a major plank in the FAB Press book Ten Years Of Terror and while it seems unarguable, we have to remember that the big success story of Hammer was low budget and huge returns, returns so spectacular that they attracted US interest. One of the scandalous tricks Hammer routinely pulled was to get US majors excited over Dracula but then cut movie package deals with Columbia that would include war films, thrillers, drama and maybe one gothic horror. James Carreras was always proud of these bundle deals but you could imagine the "behind closed door" comments at Warner, Columbia et al. They almost certainly would have felt ripped off and would have gambled on the headliner making back all they money spent on the entire deal. You can only do this to distributors for so long before they become wary. The moment your headliners fail to perform, you're dead. This is what happened to Hammer. They bit the hand that fed them while simultaneously producing headline product of decreasing quality. If Hammer had scored a massive hit in 1971, they probably would have stayed in business another 10 years. Movies like Texas Chainsaw Massacre and 1958 Dracula were both made on "no" money.

And the problem continues to this day. In an issue of Rue Morgue I read one DVD review where the reviewer asked, "When is the UK ever going to make another good horror movie?" It's a valid question. Most UK titles now primarily ape US product but usually without the budget. The UK film industry itself has always been snooty about horror, even though the UK has made many of the world's best horror movies. I have a friend whose trying to place a UK screenplay right now and he believes the UK film industry has a split personality on this: on the one hand potential commissioners turn their nose up at horror, yet on the other they stress the need for scripts to be commercial (while turning out yet another mockney crime drama that no one outside Tower Hamlets will give a toss about).

I believe it all comes down to creativity. Cash follows success.

And here we are in total agreement. Hammer is dead, long live Hammer!

Dr. Schreck

I think the only way for Hammer back then to move on successfully would have been to be ... not Hammer anymore, to be less fundamentally British. The Gothics they did were a logical follow-up to Gainsborough romaticism in a way (and many involved started their careers at Gainsborough). While critics constantly picked on the "splatter" in Hammer movies, there was much more implication than showing, but it implied all sorts of immorality, kinky sex, adultery, etc. (as did Gothic literature, in fact). The "modern" cinema in the Seventies had not longer the needs to imply - they could show all. Rape, adultery, murder. Blood, tits, everything. Hammer was not only killed by the new kind of American horror movies, but also by stuff like Taxi Driver, Straw Dogs, and their cheaper kin. So Tony Hinds jumped off the bandwagon at the right time. Later, Michael Carreras, with all his enthusiasm, was not only tricked by his father, but also didn't have much taste. He never believed it, and Meikle obviously doesn't, but I think MC was Hammer's gravedigger.

"I swore then that they would never be rid of me!"

Dr Amicus

We're starting to wander a bit off topic, but I would agree that Hammer had three main problems - removal of US financing, a glut of low budget Brit horror, and loosening censorship. However, the last of these should be placed in context - however successful Texas Chain Saw Massacre was, it remained banned in the UK until about 10 years ago (although IIRC it did get a limited release in London thanks to the GLC), and I don't think Hammer could have gone that far even if they'd wanted to.

But let's not forget the films - they are still really rather good. Demons of the Mind and Twins of Evil are impressive films, as good as almost anything Hammer put out. Frankenstein and the Monster From Hell is my test case - one of their most underrated films IMO - a dark, chamber piece that acts as a worthy end to the series (and to Fisher's career). Satanic Rites of Dracula is a lot of fun, limited by the fact that it's a Dracula film - it's a much better Avengers film than the Ralph Fiennes / Uma Thurman fiasco - and a non-ending.

Indeed, it's the lack of an ending that is the major flaw in To The Devil A Daughter. The rest of the film is really pretty good - Widmark, Lee and Denholm Elliott are all good value, it all motors along rather nicely until a climax which seems to consist of Widmark throwing a stone at Lee! And that's it! Despite this, the film did well on its UK release - not well enough on its own however to compensate for its relative failure elsewhere. Still, it's not a bad horror swansong at all.

m35541

And oddly, Michael Carreras did this deliberately feeling it was the only way that it would work for their character. Warners wanted a Count Yorga/Blacula contemporary horror and Carreras hid Dracula away in an old church.

Maybe - but its a film for affecianados only; how could it compete with The Exorcist or the Texas Chainsaw Massacre?

Dr Amicus

In the UK, very easily as Chain Saw was banned! The Exorcist and Omen were probably, in the end, more of a threat over here due to their much higher budgets redefining what horror could - or should - look like.


But I take your point - despite its rather outre title, it is a small scale film. I think most punters would have been disappointed by the Monster From Hell that was eventually produced...

cesare

Maybe someone will one day work up a theory about the asylum setting of MONSTER FROM HELL as a metaphor, not just for Hammer, but for the entire British industry as it slid into dementia then death.

m35541

As far as Hammer goes I think the metaphor was to some extent intentional - and the final shot especially so (pity about the feeble model).

Don't get me wrong - I quite like the film but I think its audience had disappeared by the time it was made and I'm not really sure why it was made at all.

Dr Amicus

I always read it as a metaphor for Britain!

Reminds me a bit of Eastwood's Bronco Billy - at least to a certain degree - where the patients at a mental health hospital sew together a new tent made from US flags (IIRC).

Haven't seen it for a few years, I must hunt down the DD release (which I believe is uncut?)