It’s impossible to review Mark of the Devil (1970) without
comparing it somewhat unfavourably to Witchfinder General, the 1968 classic starring
Vincent Price who delivers his finest screen performance as Matthew Hopkins,
the titular hunter of unfortunates suspected or accused of dabbling in the
black arts. The success of the earlier film
spawned a short lived trend for copycat movies with Mark of the Devil being the
most famous of these along with Jess Franco’s The Bloody Judge. (Ken Russell denies that The Devils was in any
way inspired by Witchfinder General and famously described the movie as nauseous).
Throughout the 60s the output of studios such as Hammer,
Tigon and Amicus had been constantly at odds with the notoriously scissor happy
UK censors due to the increasingly lurid nature of their movies. Perhaps film-makers thought
that by “hiding” the violence beneath a transparent veneer of historical and
therefore educational value they could avoid becoming victim of the
restrictions imposed by the BBFC. Not a
chance. In the end Mark of the Devil was
heavily cut and didn’t see an undefiled release until Intervision issued it during
the video boom of the early 80s. Even
that was a short lived victory as the movie was soon withdrawn in 1984 when the
Video Recordings Act was introduced in reaction to the tabloid fuelled video
nasty controversy. When Redemption
released the movie to video in 1994 it was trimmed of an impressive 4m 27s with
the movie having entire scenes ripped from its run-time. Mark of the Devil’s beleaguered history has a
happy ending though with the movie having been submitted earlier this year by
Arrow Films and finally being passed entirely uncut by the BBFC on 5th
August. But what about the movie is so
contentious that it should have been subjected to such treatment during the
decades since it first saw the light of a projector?
Part of the problem no doubt lies with the movie’s predilection
for showing torture in as gleefully explicit a fashion as possible. Witchfinder General featured numerous scenes
of sadistic violence (and was shorn of 3 minutes by the censors for its
troubles) but Mark of the Devil goes all out to present as many different forms
of torture as it can pack into its 96 minute run-time. The plethora of devices and methods on
display were no doubt inspired by the location the film-makers chose to film this often vicious slice of grand guignol; an Austrian castle which
had once been the scene of witchfinding interrogations and now functioned as a
museum. Many of the torture implements
on display there were utilised by the film-makers and this as much as anything provides
an impressive level of authenticity to the brutality on display. Along with the various witch burnings and beheadings tongues are ripped from heads and bones wrenched from sockets. Victims are forced to sit on benches of nails and have their fingers mangled with thumbscrews. The accused are branded, beaten and one poor individual is subjected to excruciating torture by dripping water. By the end of the movie there can't be many forms of torture employed during the witch trials that haven't been explored.
Although the effectiveness of many of the performances is
hampered by some of the most atrocious dubbing I’ve ever had the misfortune to witness
I still came away impressed by Udo Kier who is his usual reliable self in the
role of the hero, Count Christian von Meruh. Austro-Hungarian actor Reggie Nalder lets his distinctive
features do most of the work and the end result is Albino, one of the most
repulsive, irredeemable villains ever to grace a movie. Herbert Lom does most of the heavy lifting
acting wise as high ranking witchfinder Lord Cumberland who is, ultimately, no
less a monster than Albino. He’s just
clever enough to hide his aberrant nature and base desires behind a veil of
authority and false gentility. The
beautiful Olivera Vuco is also impressive as Vanessa, the object of Christian’s affections and Albino’s lust (oh you lucky girl).
Just as it's impossible not to compare Mark of the Devil to Witchfinder General it is likewise impossible not to mention the inspired marketing campaign that surrounded its release. A marketing campaign that was likely responsible to a large extent for the success of the movie (it did very good business in the US where, unlike in the UK, it was released to cinemas uncut). Leading up to its release posters for the movie screamed that is was "positively the most horrifying movie ever made" and stated that it was the first movie to be rated V FOR VIOLENCE. Punters arriving at cinemas were presented with vomit bags without which they would, according to the poster, not be admitted. Was it, at the time, the most horrifying movie ever made? It is pretty grim but lets not forget that Herschell Gordon Lewis (Blood Feast, Two Thousand Maniacs) had been throwing body parts and assorted viscera around with wild abandon for 7 years before Mark of the Devil arrived and Romero's game-changing Night Of The Living Dead had arrived in 1968. Which doesn't detract one bit from the genius of the way in which Mark of the Devil was marketed.
Ultimately this is a movie that mainly functions as a nasty piece of
exploitation. It’s possible that by the
time the end credits role you’ll have long since grown weary of the relentless
scenes of torture and (more likely) the equally relentless scenes of Christian and Vanessa
frolicking in the fields and streams like a couple of teenagers who just
discovered love for the first time (it doesn’t help that they seem to fall for
each other overnight). The movie is also hindered by a script that leans drunkenly in the direction of out and out comedy at times and a score that veers from teeth grindingly annoying to reasonably effective. Another problem
is that the lead up to the ending is a bit of a damp squib with a poorly staged
peasant uprising that may have read as exciting on the page but translates,
complete with poorly organised extras, to tedium on the screen. In the end what we are left with is a flawed
but nonetheless interesting movie that doesn’t come close to the achievements
of the film that undoubtedly inspired it but remains quite watchable. If sometimes for the wrong reasons.
OUR SCORE
No comments:
Post a Comment