A blessed Walpurgis night and, for those who celebrate, Blessed Beltane to all.

G.

Cool detail I noticed from watching the "Why have you done this to me" clip:

[spoiler]Angelique's boardroom has walls lined with portraits of herself, each one painted in a different historical epoch.  That's a pretty neat allusion to all the plot points that revolved around portraits over the years on DS.[/spoiler]

This movie definitely has fantastic art direction...

G.

I think it takes a certain temperament to appreciate the OS.  It is even more firmly rooted in Sixties culture than was Star Trek--the budget was much lower and it is much more theatrical, on every level.

I have a friend who likes a lot of the same movies and TV shows that I do, and he can't get into DS.  He always finds it "too slow."  He's only about six years younger than me.

I am rather curious as to what impact the new movie will have on the public's image of Barnabas.  To me at least he comes off as a goofy freak in the clips.  Frid's Barnabas was such a haunting figure of mystery... those eyes ... that voice.  There was this sense of an inner sorrow that could never find solace.  Even with the Ben Cross interpretation, there was this tragic sense of wounded dignity that fed his anger and, at times, arrogance.  In the original 1967 Barnabas narrative, in the Maggie kidnapping storyline, Barnabas really did seem hyper-insane in a number of those scenes where he was trying to harrow the girl into becoming "my Josette."  It was some of the scariest stuff ever seen on television IMO.

Depp's performance makes me think of inspired lunacy on the scale of Dieter from Sprockets on SNL.  I wrote to a friend yesterday that having seen the clips, it would seem that the entire movie had to be tilted towards the absurd in order to accommodate the craziness of Depp's take on Barnabas and, in a sense, provide a frame or a context for it.  Sort of the way you would redecorate a room in your house before hanging some really unusual painting in it. 

I do think that Pfeiffer does a fabulous job of provided a much needed counterpoint of realism that somehow helps to make what Depp does work, in the context of the movie--to judge from the scenes posted yesterday.

cheers, G.

Thank you for those thoughts, Penny.  Of course what people think about DS matters to you.  How can it not?

More than any other television show I have ever been engaged with, DS speaks to my heart.  Collinwood was my refuge at the most difficult, awkward moment in my life.  I actually don't mind the laughter since I often laugh along as well, but I do mind the perception that "it was so awful" or "so boring, how could you watch it."

I don't have any answers, but I want you to know that I can sympathize with the discomfort all of this makes you feel. 

hugs, Uncle Gothick

Well, I for one enjoyed watching the clips.  They make the movie seem about five times more interesting to this viewer than ANY of the trailers which I have mostly found repellent.  But then, as a going-on-54 gay male eccentric who lives in a book-lined batcave, I'm hardly this movie's target audience.

The clips actually have me excited to see the movie now.  I had figured it would mostly be an exercise in masochism but I am seeing enough here to beguile me in between the kitsch and the inevitable toilet humor.

Reality check for anyone who cares:  NOBODY in the 1770s spoke the way the Barnabas character in this movie does--on stage or off.  I've read enough plays, letters, and memoirs of the period to be pretty confident in saying that.  I have no idea where SGS or whoever composed the dialogue came up with Barn's goofball way with words here, but Depp pulls it off.

One thing that fascinates me: [spoiler] Around 15 years ago in an issue of Dale Clark's zine Inside the Old House, I read an article by a fan who theorized that Liz in 1967, in our OS reality, *knew* when Barnabas arrived at Collinwood that he was a vampire.  The scenario was laid out with great care and attention to detail, and the person had studied the episodes really carefully.  I think the decision to make this factor an explicit part of the story this time around WAS a very clever twist on the original narrative, and Pfeiffer plays it much more brilliantly than I would have expected.  To be truthful, I had no thoughts one way or the other about Pfeiffer's casting.  From what I've seen to date, she may well be the best thing about this version of the story. [/spoiler]

Best,

G.

MB and michael,  are you implying that [spoiler]Barnabas makes Vicki into a vampire?  Since Vicki wasn't even a character in house of DS, I'm confused by what you're implying, and the imagery in the trailers I have seen to date (I think you must have seen more than I have at this point) doesn't show anything like this.[/spoiler]

Just asking for clarification.  I don't really give two twitches of a rats tail about spoilers so I hope one of you will clear it up for me.  Please use the spoiler tag.  Thank you.

Best, G.

From what Grahame-Smith said to Prof. Stokes, it sounds as if the movie has undergone some re-edits since the test screenings.  So, the 1772 prologue may have been considerably sliced down.

I really did not see any spoilers to speak of, beyond one minor detail about the Barnabas/Angelique backstory in this version (which could be mis-reported here since the reviewer admitted that it all went by so quickly, he hardly knew what was going on).  You've seen all the trailers so you know all the content revealed in this review.

G.

Fans, I just stumbled across this fun (albeit somewhat grainy and fuzzy) clip of Alice Cooper playing a Witch in a Halloween skeleton costume and singing a song whose title seems to be "I eat my things" ... it looks very prophetic, not only of his performance 40 years later in DS, but of some of Tim Burton's visual obsessions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_E2b_6GZbsY&feature=related

The clip is from a very short lived series, The Snoop Sisters, and dates to March of 1974.  The older actress in the scene is Miss Helen Hayes.

Enjoy!

G.