4343
« on: October 17, 2007, 08:54:13 PM »
The ironic thing about hoDS historically is that from what I have read (not my own research), the movie did boffo box office business. So, even if it was a failure on other levels, commercially it was a huge hit--in an industry which has a history of total myopia beyond anything other than commercial success. By market dictates, DC got it right on the money.
I do think the movie benefited from the cinematography of Arthur Ornitz. He gave the proceedings a very lush visual style (although I think there were a couple of gaffes--notably the first shot in which we see Barnabas full-face, which is poorly, awkwardly framed and not properly lit at all--I'm quite sure that the speed with which they churned it out is to blame for this).
And, of course, Robert Cobert's score, not to mention Lela Swift's uncredited work as AD helped a great deal with atmosphere and tone.
Wasn't the axing of a lot of the introductory stuff the result of pressure from the MGM suits? I believe that Dan deleted the later sequences establishing Barnabas and Julia's relationship before he delivered the final print to the studio, but I thought that on Darren's old site there was material about cuts that the suits wanted for the sake of conserving their 90 minute running time for drive-in showings and double bills.
hoDS and NoDS weren't the only films of that period ruined by excessive cutting. Dr Phibes rises again is another example although I think it still holds up pretty well. There are others that could be mentioned.
Another irony is that Hammer studios was on very shakey ground in 1970-71. I think it was around this time that Warner Bros. decided not to renew the deal to distribute Hammer's product in the US--now that I think of it, I think this came a bit later, in '73? I know this is why some of the final Hammers such as Satanic Rites of Dracula and To the Devil, a Daughter, took so long to play in the US and weren't exhibited very widely.
G.