| Product: |
Blood On Satan's Claw (DVD) |
| Date: |
06/04/04 (168 review reads) |
| Rating: |
 |
Advantages: Genuinely good, old British horror film with, disturbing moments
Disadvantages: The ending is a , bit weak and the extras aren?t, all that good either
This is a pretty good British horror movie made in 1969, probably to cash in on the success of Witchfinder General. Made by Tigon, Hammer?s most interesting rival, and directed by Piers Haggard, it?s a classy, intelligent affair that is genuinely unsettling in places.
Set at some point in the 17th century in a small English village, it begins with a local ploughman unearthing the devil?s skull. Shortly afterwards, strange things start to happen. A local nobleman?s fiancée goes mad for no reason, growing a sinister claw. Local adolescents, led by a saucy young popsy named Angel Blake, start behaving extremely weirdly, participating in sinister rituals that end in mutilation and murder. People grow hairy patches on their skin, and it transpires that the resurrected devil is piecing himself together from these weird hairy patches, having the victims remove them so that he can graft them onto himself. A judge from London, who happens to be visiting, is the only person who knows what?s going on, and he leaves early on, promising to return. When he does, there?s obviously going to be some heavy duty smiting, but until then the village is at the mercy of the dark forces that have been unleashed.
The film is very atmospheric, with some astonishingly uncanny set-pieces. The most unpleasant and effective has a girl being raped and murdered by a crowd of adolescents-turned-devil-worshippers. The rape itself isn?t presented in a salubrious or prurient way, not being particularly explicit, but the leering weirdoes who crowd around her, looking like a bunch of wrong-minded hippies, are really very sinister. The looks of lust on Angel?s face as she watches, the reading of satanic texts, the toothless old crone who?s somehow become involved, and the presence of the Devil himself in the background, make this a horribly intense sequence. The film never tops
it, but there are plenty of other nasty shocks along the way.
One of the reasons it?s so effective is because the lives of the villagers are evoked incredibly well; you feel that this is a community of real, normal people. They?re seen going about their business in a quite matter of fact way as the world begins to go terribly wrong around them. Almost uniquely in a horror film of this period, all of the performances are superb. Patrick Wymark is top-billed as the judge (this was his last film; he?s best known, to me at least, as Richard Burton?s boss in Where Eagles Dare). He makes him a fully-rounded character with a grim sense of humour, his initial scepticism about local superstitions convincingly replaced by a single-minded dedication to cut out the source of the evil. The various villagers are all played well, too, most impressive being Barry Andrews as the heroic farm labourer Ralph, and Charlotte Mitchell as the matronly servant Ellen. Familiar faces crop up frequently. Michele Dotrice (Frank Spencer?s wife in Some Mothers Do ?Ave ?Em) is a young witch named Margaret. Wendy Padbury, who had just done a stint as a Dr Who assistant, is the hapless young rape victim. And Anthony Ainley, who went on to play the Master in 80s Dr Who, is very good as the local vicar, in love with nature, but utterly hopeless against the evil brewing in the village?s children.
Angel Blake is played by Linda Hayden, one of the most attractive nymphets British cinema ever discovered. She was in quite a few British horrors around this time, although sadly she faded into obscurity when the British film industry collapsed in the 70s. A terrible shame. She?s great in Blood on Satan?s Claw, being sinister, intense and very sexy indeed (although her eyebrows get bush
ier as the film goes on, a strange touch). Her most celebrated scene has her trying to seduce Anthony Ainley, and the artless way she slips her clothes off to reveal her teenage delights is enough to make me shudder just thinking about it.
The film is beautifully shot, making abundant use if some lovely countryside locations. The budget was quite low, so the village itself is never seen, being represented by a large house, a church and a barn. But that?s a minor quibble. The set designs for the house interiors are superb, to the extent that I really thought they were genuine locations. I think it?s because they?re so well lit, with the natural light looking entirely natural, and the candlelight usually being very good (although there are a couple of scenes where it falls flat). The incidental music is perfect, sinister, often discordant, and a great deal more minimalist than the typical Hammer horror score. The make up effects for the weird satanic hair patches are also surprisingly good. And the direction is, for the most part, excellent. The randomness of what happens, as the evil afflicts anyone, no matter who they are, is perhaps the most chilling aspect of the story, and done very well.
It?s not a perfect film, though. There are a few little blunders. There are some ill-advised hairy-claw-reaching-out-of-the-woodwork shots that don?t convince, and the Devil himself is a bit silly when you get a good look at him (fortunately you don?t very often). The film was apparently written as three short stories rather than one continuous whole, and that shows at various times, with important characters vanishing halfway through with no explanation, and others appearing just as suddenly. And while the first hour is excellently paced, it seems to lose momentum a bit in the last third, with most of the great nasty set-pieces already out of the way. The ending is charmingly
bonkers, but far too abrupt, and not weighty enough to satisfy after all that?s gone before. (The final freeze-framed image as the credits role is great, though.)
So it has its faults, but is still well worth seeing. This film is highly regarded among horror fans, and it?s easy to see why. It also has a great battle of the generations subtext (stodgy old judge getting bothered about teenagers discovering sex), perhaps coupled with a fear of the physical changes that take place as you grow up. I love the way that adolescents sprouting hair in funny places is seen as evidence of devil worship, since my own experience of adolescence certainly involved a certain amount of surprising hair growth, not sure about the rest of you. Watch it for the horror, analyse it afterwards for a laugh.
The DVD, one of Anchor Bay?s generally classy horror releases, isn?t too bad. The picture and sound quality on the film are good. There?s a long interview with Linda Hayden about her career (although this is let down by not having clips from any films except Blood on Satan?s Claw). There?s a typically pointless image gallery, although there are a few posters and such like. There are two trailers, although the second is just a shortened version of the first, and we?re not told where these trailers were shown. We get biographical text for the director, Piers Haggard, and for Linda Hayden (and for once the text is big enough to read comfortably), and a long text piece about the making of the film. There are also apparently PDFs of the original stories the film was based on included, but since I don?t have a DVD drive on my PC I can?t check those out.
The main special feature, of course, is the commentary. We get director Haggard, Linda Hayden, and script-writer Robert Wynne-Simmons. &
#73;t?s not the best commentary I?ve ever heard, I?m afraid. There?s plenty of interesting information and anecdotes, but there?s also a bit too much of the three participants paying each other extravagant compliments. Sometimes they?re barely audible, too, which is a bit of a problem. It?s worth checking out once if you?re interested.
So maybe the extras could be better, but what kind of weirdo buys a film on DVD for the extras? If you like old British horror films then you should lap this up. If you don?t then you?d probably be better off leaving it
Summary:
|
|
