Undead Funk by Christina Harlin, Your Fearless Young Orphan Blacula (1972) Directed by William Crane
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Undead Funk By Christina Harlin, your Fearless Young Orphan Blacula (1972) Directed by William Crane What surprised me most about the Blaxploitation vampire flick Blacula (well known probably because of its title alone) was how innocent and tame it felt, as it nevertheless presented a fairly decent spin on the Dracula tale. If the film avoids being Shaft with Vampires, if nobody in the movie is dressed like Huggybear, if there is very little “jive talking,” we might be able to credit budget constraints on one hand and the dignity of the cast on the other. Performing this retelling of Dracula with a mostly all-black cast is a small troupe of actors who may lack actual brilliance, but who take their roles seriously. They do well enough that it wasn’t until the movie was over that I thought, “Holy crap, that was one of the most cheaply-made movies I’ve ever seen.” In my mind, I see the set director running from location to location, calling in favors, so they could film in a nightclub and in the basement of the local water plant and in his friend Janice’s house “just for one weekend,” he promises. We can look at Blacula in two ways, both relevant. First, we can consider it as a vampire movie. Well, it’s just Dracula told over again with black actors in the roles, but there’s a reason proposed. See, back in the 18th Century, the real Count Dracula entertained an African Prince Mamuwalde (William Marshall) and his wife Princess Luva (Vonetta McGee). When Prince Mamuwalde expressed understandable displeasure at Count Dracula’s refusal to join in the cause to abolish slavery, Dracula took offense. He turned Mamuwalde into a vampire and locked him in a coffin to starve for centuries, and to rub salt in the wound, buried Luva alive. We all know Vlad the Impaler was bad about overreacting to things. Dracula is actually the one who says, “You will be called Blacula,” which is probably the height of camp in the film. Who knew that Dracula was such a punster? Two hundred years later, Blacula’s coffin is purchased by a pair of gay interior decorators. Yes – an openly gay couple is in the film, and they are treated with relatively surprising respect. The word Dr. Gordon is here to give one bad-assed medical opinion. “faggot” still gets thrown around, and there are a few off-color comments. But, if you’re paying attention, the meat of the story treats them no differently than it would treat any other character. They had friends and people who cared for them, people who are grieved and disturbed when the young men are found dead in their antique collection, drained of blood, and who pursue their case without ever making their sexuality an issue. Er, I assume you don’t need me to explain what happened to the poor guys. You see, they opened Blacula’s coffin, etc. etc. So anyhow, Dr. Gordon Thomas (Thalmus Rasulala) was a friend of one of the two murdered young men, and his inspection of the body leaves him with questions which he proceeds to investigate. Little does he know that he is leading Mamuwalde to the thing the vampire most desires. As in the original tale, it’s all about Blacula’s lost love. Dr. Thomas is engaged to Michelle (Denise Nicholas), and Michelle’s sister Tina just happens to be the spitting image of Mamuwalde’s long-lost Luva. So while Dr. Gordon puzzles over the rising body count, Mamuwalde insinuates himself into their lives, under the guise of being a “strange dude” – he is christened thus by Skillet, a family friend who turns up at the nightclub in several scenes, to provide commentary on the strangeness of dudes. Blacula does a fairly impressive job of conveying its story within its extremely limited confines. A surprising amount of the film takes place at a nightclub, which comes complete with funky live music. Here “You know, he is a strange dude.” Mamuwalde comes to Michelle’s birthday party to seduce Tina with his –Skillet, 1972 cool cape and foreign accent. Done and done. Nancy the photographer comes by with her huge old camera and takes pictures, which Mamuwalde does not like one bit. He follows Nancy back to her house and kills her before she can develop the shots which would give away his monstrous identity, because of course he would not show up on film. By this, we establish that Mamuwalde will stop at nothing to keep Tina for himself – and believe it or not, we’ve actually become a little attached to Nancy. Any woman who develops her own photos while chugging a Coors and wearing a sequined showgirl costume is someone you’d want to party with. Now, I say that Mamuwalde is killing people. He is, but they are all bouncing back to un-life a few hours (sometimes minutes) later to continue the vampire killing spree. “Clues!” cries Dr. Gordon, as one corpse after another disappears from the morgue and the attacks increase. Serving as our Van Helsing, Dr. Gordon realizes that New York is infested with vampires and he must stop them! As in the tale of Dracula, Mamuwalde’s desire is to turn Tina into his undead bride and escape with her before Dr. Gordon can stake them both through the heart. Okay, so it’s really the same old story, told on the cheap with a black cast, but I was pleasantly surprised at how well they did. First, I liked the characters – they have more depth than you’d expect out the cheesy script. Then, to keep things from being slow and repetitive, we do have the added expression of the culture – the fashion, music and lingo of the early 70s – to brighten things up. So what is the second way we can look at Blacula? Through its social origins and effects, of course. How does this fit into the Blaxploitation film movement? What does it say about society? Ewww, that all sounds so boring to talk about. We interrupt this movie to bring you the funk. Look, I don’t know what kind of impact films like this had, good, or bad, or what. The movie is almost fifty years old and much to my surprise, I got through it with only a couple moments of “omigod I can’t believe they said that,” and then for the rest of it, I was just pretty impressed at how much Crain did with so little. I’m no historian, but I like movies and this one has enough spirit to rise above its meager beginnings. From my perspective, this was quick, endearingly corny rendition of Dracula that just happened to have a back cast – and the whole project carried with it a certain defiant dignity, rather like Mamuwalde himself. Besides that, I learned on imdb.com that the actor who portrayed Mamuwalde, William Marshall, went on to appear as the King of Cartoons on PeeWee’s Playhouse, then of course I smacked myself on the forehead and said, “That’s where I’ve seen his face before!” The King of Cartoons and Count Blacula? How many actors get to play two supercool roles like that? On the Fangs scale, we’ll give this one an 8/10. It’s as good as any of its contemporaries, has a funky style that sets it apart without demeaning anyone, and the stars are putting themselves enthusiastically into the job. They tell the story of Dracula all over again, only this time, we get Skillet. Hello, children! .