I'd say WG is more professionally made (aside: the 'uncut' version I saw
had less than a minute or 2 added of "missing" footage, and as they looked
like they were copied from some Betamax tape and rotoscoped, it added
nothing to the film and was in fact rather distracting).
Anyhoo, I found Mark of the Devil to be the more compelling film overall,
in particular the scene where the blond is burnt at the stake and no one
says a word or makes a sound; and the final resolution of the film.
I've not seen Witchfinder General... so my vote goes to Mark of the
Devil...
Plus it has Udo Kier...
WITCHFINDER GENERAL is definitely my favourite of the two films, due to the
excellent use of the English countryside, Vincent Price's marvellous
performance, and the great, very powerful ending. I only recently saw MARK
OF THE DEVIL for the first time
(http://www.horrorexpress.com/filmreview.php?id=555), and was surprised by
how tame it was. Franco's THE BLOODY JUDGE is a surprisingly competent and
enjoyable rehash of the same themes, not to mention his later LES DEMONS and
LOVE LETTER OF A PORTUGESE NUN, both of which are amongst his best work.
Tom
> "Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia" <ne...@newb.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns965753922A...@68.12.19.6...
>> Herbert Lom versus Vincent Price, mano a mano!
>>
>> I'd say WG is more professionally made (aside: the 'uncut' version I
>> saw had less than a minute or 2 added of "missing" footage, and as
>> they looked like they were copied from some Betamax tape and
>> rotoscoped, it added nothing to the film and was in fact rather
>> distracting).
>
> WITCHFINDER GENERAL is definitely my favourite of the two films, due
> to the excellent use of the English countryside, Vincent Price's
> marvellous performance, and the great, very powerful ending.
They both ended well.
> I only
> recently saw MARK OF THE DEVIL for the first time
> (http://www.horrorexpress.com/filmreview.php?id=555), and was
> surprised by how tame it was.
I thought it was pretty brutal.
>Franco's THE BLOODY JUDGE is a
> surprisingly competent and enjoyable rehash of the same themes, not to
> mention his later LES DEMONS and LOVE LETTER OF A PORTUGESE NUN, both
> of which are amongst his best work.
>
Are you 'taking a piss'?
I enjoyed The Bloody Judge even if it is 'mainstream' Franco. But I have
wondered if the battle scenes in the film were taken from a different
film? The Bloody Judge did not seem to have the budget for Franco to
stage war scenes.
Andrew
> I've not seen Witchfinder General... so my vote goes to Mark of the
> Devil... Plus it has Udo Kier...
Like the Marks & Spencer of the genre, that boy. His name in the credits
is your guarantee of quality.
--
"We like to think of ourselves as evolved (particularly Walpurgis, his
unwavering obsession with clunky cheap Italian horror films and hating
all Americans seems to be somehow justifiable as he is unquestionably
the best and the brightest of all True Scholars)." - Gritz, 20/03/05
Now playing: http://www.audioscrobbler.com/user/drwalpurgis/
> Are you 'taking a piss'?
LOL! There's another one!
> Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia asks:
>
>> Are you 'taking a piss'?
>
> LOL! There's another one!
>
Oh! Rude!
--
Christ Kills Two, Injures Seven in Abortion Clinic Attack.
"He put his hands over Dr. Woodring's head and told him he forgave him for
his sins and then he shot him in the face." --The Onion
"Freedom is a dangerous thing, and you might be exposed to things you don't
want to hear,"he said.--Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala FL
> I've not seen Witchfinder General... so my vote goes to Mark of the
> Devil...
>
> Plus it has Udo Kier...
Udo Kier or not Witchfinder is the better film. We have it so watch it.
;)
MARK OF THE DEVIL is more for the sleazy grindhouse crowd, as evidenced by
the infamous gag of giving out barf bags to the audience (I have one! - not
used, thank God).
But for me, WITCHFINDER GENERAL is just an excellent film overall. It is
nothing short of tragic that Michael Reeves did not live long enough to
endure and prosper as a filmmaker.
Besides, Vincent Price is one of the coolest cats to ever walk the planet.
----------
loucyphre -
Editor - http://www.horrorexpress.com (Two years young, suckaz!)
Contributing Writer - http://www.cultcuts.net
______________________
"I like it. It's a statement."
- (Linnea Quigley, "Return of the Living Dead")
"Our enemies never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our
people, and neither do we."
- (George W. Bush)
"It's all these booze-addled British boys with their Viz-style
rough-and-tumble pub-style blabbering and bullshitting about fucking
sheep and 'getting pissed' and 'tits' and 'arse'. It used to be such a
polite, congenial place, did alt.horror."
- (Dr. Phibes, alt.horror, 12/16/01)
Ya, this along with the 50 million other dvd's we have to watch... :/
And sorry, but Udo makes everything better :-P
>Are you 'taking a piss'?
aw - isn't he just *adorable*!!
Haven't seen MOTD as far as I can remember but Witchfinder General is
a brilliant film with some extremely powerful scenes and a
depressingly creepy atmosphere.
>Like the Marks & Spencer of the genre, that boy. His name in the credits
>is your guarantee of quality.
YAAOW
Jesus Christ, he's into golden showers now...
--
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| James J. Dominguez (aka DexX) | james[dot]dominguez[at]gmail[dot]com |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| "It only takes a room of Americans for the English and Australians |
| to realise how much we have in common." - Stephen Fry |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
"...and here, my prize. The black widow."
Easily the high point of a good album.
Sorry, my subscription to Journal of Cockney Cunts Quarterly ran out.
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 17:42:37 GMT, Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia
Apparently it's "taking the piss"? Which seems like an odd way to phrase
it, but nonetheless I do have some strange kind of curiosity about your
inbred, antique and altogether quaint and ancient ways 'over there'.
Here's a phrase you might be familiar with:
> Haven't seen MOTD as far as I can remember but Witchfinder General is
> a brilliant film with some extremely powerful scenes and a
> depressingly creepy atmosphere.
I think it just ties in with your fanboy collection of Vincent Price
figurines.
It's a contraction of "taking the piss out of someone", which means
deflating their ego, equivalent to "taking them down a peg or two". It
has mutated to mean playing a joke on someone, or parodying them. A
"pisstake" is a satire.
The way violence is shown & handled in the two films is radically
different also. In MOTD there's a tendency to cheap sadistic thrills,
and we're not really asked to care or disapprove about what's going on
screen as much as we should, or at least certainly not to the degree
in "Witchfinder.". The reaction shots, more often than not, are those
of the stoic or even gleeful excruciators. While in WG, Reeves
frequently emphasizes the horrified and stunned reactions of the
townsfolk or innocents in carefully controlled shots, not zooming in
or lingering on the bloody pulled-out tongue at the end of the
pinchers or the witch tits as she lay on the rack.
All things considered, I thought TWG was a nice change of pace from
typical, much more exploitative treatments of the theme in subsequent
films with the same theme. "Mark Of The Devil" certainly had its
moments as a pure horror film, and I enjoyed it, but "The Conqueror
Worm" seemed so much more than that.
-worm
"Stone Age, here I come!" -- Mrs. Hilyard, LADY IN A CAGE
>Apparently it's "taking the piss"? Which seems like an odd way to phrase
>it, but nonetheless I do have some strange kind of curiosity about your
>inbred, antique and altogether quaint and ancient ways 'over there'.
Haven't we been here before? Anyway, how come you sister-fucking
hunchbacked pretzel-scoffers say 'write me' instead of 'write TO me'?
Don't make NO fucking sense.
Price's performance in "Witchfinder General" is priceless, subdued &
unique. During the masking of the film, he butted heads with the
director Michael Reeves, who boldly & bravely asked Price to tone it
down a bit from his typical highly dramatic & theatrical style, trying
to go for a much more understated performance that didn't overwhelm
the subject matter & more befitting of the serious kind of film he was
making. As expected, Price exploded, "I've been in films for
approximately 50 years! How long have *you* been involved in this
business, YOUNG MAN?!?!" Later, Price thanked Reeves for reigning him
in a bit in a heartfelt personal letter when he saw the finished film
& came to feel it was one of his best, most naturalistic efforts. Of
course, Price went right back to the hammy style we all came to know &
love with almost all his later films, INCLUDING "Theater Of Blood."
Can you imagine if he had played Dr. Phibes as he played Matthew
Hopkins? We would have wept & wondered what the hell happened to poor
Vinnie.
Indeed. For anyone seriously interested in the subject, I recommend the
Montague Summers edition of the 'Malleus Malificarum' of Sprenger & Kramer,
an utterly fascinating book from the late 15th century (translated into
English obviously), which gives details of witches and the correct
punishments/tortures to apply to them. Some parts are genuinely chilling
when one considers that countless innocent people were murdered by the
church based on its contents.
Tom
> As expected, Price exploded, "I've been in films for
> approximately 50 years! How long have *you* been involved in this
> business, YOUNG MAN?!?!"
Price said he'd made scores of films, and asked Reeves how many films he'd
made, to which Reeves replied, "Two good ones".
>Price said he'd made scores of films, and asked Reeves how many films he'd
>made, to which Reeves replied, "Two good ones".
Heh, I was obviously winging it & my account was a bit of a
paraphrase, but I really like yours above. :-) A while back I had
started a thread on the subject of excellent horror film directors
that had made so few films that it was a crime against cinema. I
would like to revise my contribution to that list & place the late
Michael Reeves at the top of it. R.I.P Mikey.
I still need to see his earlier film with Barbara Steele. I enjoyed
the one he made with Karloff entitled "The Sorcerers" (1967). It
captured a nice piece of the swinging psychedelic 60s, and also had
that flavor of fairly good SF-horror.
> "Mark Of The Devil" certainly had its
> moments as a pure horror film, and I enjoyed it, but "The Conqueror
> Worm" seemed so much more than that.
>
No. Not really.
> The way violence is shown & handled in the two films is radically
> different also. In MOTD there's a tendency to cheap sadistic thrills,
> and we're not really asked to care or disapprove about what's going on
> screen as much as we should, or at least certainly not to the degree
> in "Witchfinder.".
My experience was completely the opposite. Although it's evidently not
close to "Men Behind The Sun" (or Bod would be telling us how
furshlugginer great Mark of the Devil is), I think Mark of the Devil is a
more bleak and cynical perspective. But mainly I think you people just
have some bizarre homosexual attraction to Vincent Price, or any aging
guy with a high-pitched reedy voice and femme mannerisms.
>>loucyphre shared this:
>>> Besides, Vincent Price is one of the coolest cats to ever walk the
>>> planet.
>
> Price's performance in "Witchfinder General" is priceless, subdued &
> unique.
FAGS.
I don't think I've ever said that. But I do tell people to "Call TO me on
the phone," so there.
>But mainly I think you people just
>have some bizarre homosexual attraction to Vincent Price, or any aging
>guy with a high-pitched reedy voice and femme mannerisms.
Nah, but everyone knows that the latent homosexual fans of the "Mark
Of The Devil" family of films just want to drool over the big, meaty &
sweaty muscleman torturers with their gigantic bulges and the images
of idealized masculinity juxtaposed as they nick & tuck old-world
style the bodies of old, flabby or emaciated females. There's just no
good jerk-off material in "Witchfinder General" so, yes, the film is a
lesser effort & less enjoyable than others in that regard. :Þ
Absolutely! I have this book too (original German version: Der Hexenhammer -
Malleus Maleficiarum) and I recommend it to everyone who is interested in
witches.
By the way, all the tortures in Mark of the Devil are realistic and were
commonly used. You only have to visit a witch museum (here in Germany are
several) to see the torture machines and accessiories with your own eyes.
After seeing this, you won愒 call MARK OF THE DEVIL a cheap and sleazy
exploitation. It愀 not.
Matt Kramer
We don`t solve mysteries in real life -
why should we do it in films ?
______________________________
Dario Argento
Odd that you would remember that...very odd....ya' homo. All I remember
are those 2 scrumptous hooters being forced up rather prominently with
whatever technological contrivances they used.
BOING BOING BOING BOING BOING BOING BOING
>Odd that you would remember that...very odd....ya' homo. All I remember
>are those 2 scrumptous hooters being forced up rather prominently with
>whatever technological contrivances they used.
>BOING BOING BOING BOING BOING BOING BOING
That was actually my homage, with just a slight rewording, to the
official entry for "Mark Of The Devil" in "The Encyclopedia Of Horror
Films" edited by Robin Hardy. I was hoping someone here would get
that. Not you of course. You're still discovering these films for
the first time, and discovering things about yourself. :D It was a
hilarious read because there really isn't any content as described in
my previous post in either of the two films.
But really, Mark Of The Devil, despite that memorably bleak ending was
a goofy little horror film that was basically "Witchfinder General"
taken so many steroids its balls shrank. The scene with the Chinese
water torture (along with several others) just about ruined any
attempt it made to be taken seriously & to make it more valid. Still
enjoyable though. I just didn't learn anything from it that
"witchfinder general" didn't teach us much better -- about human
nature, compelling storytelling & good filmmaking.
>After seeing this, you won´t call MARK OF THE DEVIL a cheap and sleazy
>exploitation. It´s not.
Did they really use The Chinese Water Torture in Germany at that time
though?? That seemed thrown in there because it's an all-time
favorite with generations of kiddies & would be familiar to EVERYONE.
Pffft.
> I just didn't learn anything from it that
> "witchfinder general" didn't teach us much better -- about human
> nature, compelling storytelling & good filmmaking.
>
I think you're reading way too much into the film that is 'witchfinder
general'. Craftsmanlike but far from compelling or strikingly original.
Watch out, next thing you know you'll be raving about the cinematic genius
of Jess Franco, and then it'll be time to drill a hole in your head and let
out the demons.
>Craftsmanlike but far from compelling or strikingly original.
Name one horror film on the neo-realistic witchhunter theme that came
before "Witchfinder General." Just one film. Sounds pretty
strikingly original to me.
>Watch out, next thing you know you'll be raving about the cinematic genius
>of Jess Franco, and then it'll be time to drill a hole in your head and let
>out the demons.
If this happens to me I opt for a gunshot to the head... and I'm going
to *try* not to come back...*cough* *choke* REALLY TRY not to come
back. *wheeze*
> On Mon, 16 May 2005 18:56:19 +0200, "Matt Kramer"
> <matt....@gmx.netNOSPAM> wrote:
>
>>After seeing this, you won´t call MARK OF THE DEVIL a cheap and sleazy
>>exploitation. It´s not.
>
> Did they really use The Chinese Water Torture in Germany at that time
> though?? That seemed thrown in there because it's an all-time
> favorite with generations of kiddies & would be familiar to EVERYONE.
> Pffft.
>
> -worm
>
From that perspective, IDENTITY would be the worst horror movie EVER.
> You're still discovering these films for
> the first time, and discovering things about yourself.
LOL, by the way.
> On Tue, 17 May 2005 00:16:51 GMT, Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia
> <ne...@newb.com> wrote:
>
>>Craftsmanlike but far from compelling or strikingly original.
>
> Name one horror film on the neo-realistic witchhunter theme that came
> before "Witchfinder General." Just one film. Sounds pretty
> strikingly original to me.
>
Toooooshay.
To be neo-realistic, the soldier guy would have had to try and steal a
bicycle near the end, to keep his job in Cromwells army. I noticed the
fattie who played Cromwell was also 'The Judge' in "Blood on Satan's
Claw". Great fun--though personally I was surprised to learn that
growing claws out of one's hand was of a sign of insanity rather than
possession. I rather suspect that inspired a bit of EvilDead2 as well.
>>Watch out, next thing you know you'll be raving about the cinematic
>>genius of Jess Franco, and then it'll be time to drill a hole in your
>>head and let out the demons.
>
> If this happens to me I opt for a gunshot to the head... and I'm going
> to *try* not to come back...*cough* *choke* REALLY TRY not to come
> back. *wheeze*
>
LOL.
Don't worry, there's a line of well-armed people standing in line just
*hoping* you'll come back.
>>>Apparently it's "taking the piss"? Which seems like an odd way to
>>>phrase it, but nonetheless I do have some strange kind of curiosity
>>>about your inbred, antique and altogether quaint and ancient ways
>>>'over there'.
>>
>>Haven't we been here before? Anyway, how come you sister-fucking
>>hunchbacked pretzel-scoffers say 'write me' instead of 'write TO me'?
>>Don't make NO fucking sense.
>
> I don't think I've ever said that. But I do tell people to "Call TO me on
> the phone," so there.
"I could care less". That's the best one.
--
"We like to think of ourselves as evolved (particularly Walpurgis, his
unwavering obsession with clunky cheap Italian horror films and hating
all Americans seems to be somehow justifiable as he is unquestionably
the best and the brightest of all True Scholars)." - Gritz, 20/03/05
Now playing: http://www.audioscrobbler.com/user/drwalpurgis/
> Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia wrote:
>
>>>>Apparently it's "taking the piss"? Which seems like an odd way to
>>>>phrase it, but nonetheless I do have some strange kind of curiosity
>>>>about your inbred, antique and altogether quaint and ancient ways
>>>>'over there'.
>>>
>>>Haven't we been here before? Anyway, how come you sister-fucking
>>>hunchbacked pretzel-scoffers say 'write me' instead of 'write TO me'?
>>>Don't make NO fucking sense.
>>
>> I don't think I've ever said that. But I do tell people to "Call TO
>> me on the phone," so there.
>
> "I could care less". That's the best one.
>
OH MATRON!
I don't know why we bother trying to educate this group.
> ...Anyway, how come you sister-fucking
> hunchbacked pretzel-scoffers say 'write me' instead of 'write TO me'?
> Don't make NO fucking sense.
I disagree. "Me" can be dative as well as accusative, just like in
"give me that" or "call me".
On the other hand "write me" does sound fucking stupid.
Allonz-y!
You just wanted to show off that you know what "dative" and
"accusative" mean, didn't you? Fair enough.
> On the other hand "write me" does sound fucking stupid.
Absolutely. Without the preposition, the word "me" becomes the direct
object of the transitive verb, instead of the dative case (indirect
object?) of the intransitive verb. This would mean writing "me" the same
way one would write a book or write a song.
The only way I can think of the statement (well, imperative) "write
me" to be grammatically correct is if a form of writing, such as a story
or song, is ascribed a will of its own, and demanding to be written.
'Rob just had to get the story on paper. Every spare moment of the
day, it was saying "write me" over and over.'
--
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| James J. Dominguez (aka DexX) | james[dot]dominguez[at]gmail[dot]com |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| "It only takes a room of Americans for the English and Australians |
| to realise how much we have in common." - Stephen Fry |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> Absolutely. Without the preposition, the word "me" becomes the
> direct
> object of the transitive verb, instead of the dative case (indirect
> object?) of the intransitive verb. This would mean writing "me" the
> same way one would write a book or write a song.
Holy Shit. Can you imagine telling someone to "Call TO me," or "Call AT
me"? All that's happening is that the mind is filling in the rest, which
is "[You] call me [on your phone]." So "Call me" is something nearly anyone
can understand. I've never heard anyone say "write me", except for
Simon&Garfunkel.
They are two different words - "call" vs. "write" - and mean different
things in different grammatical structures. You seem to be suggesting
that "call me" is an abbreviation of "call to me", but that isn't true at
all. "Bob called Mary" is not the same as "Bob called to Mary". The
latter suggests shouting across some kind of distance, but the former
doesn't.
>
> Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia shared this:
>> Holy Shit. Can you imagine telling someone to "Call TO me," or "Call
>> AT me"?
>
> They are two different words - "call" vs. "write" - and mean
> different
> things in different grammatical structures. You seem to be suggesting
> that "call me" is an abbreviation of "call to me"
No, I'm suggesting that no one is going to say "[Please undertake a phone-]
Call TO me". If I said "Write me" (I can't imagine saying this in 99% of
conversations) it's 99% probable that someone would understand what I
meant.
Of course if you insist on boring people to death by correcting their
grammar constantly, you won't have to worry about anyone trying to contact
at you or on you.
>No, I'm suggesting that no one is going to say "[Please undertake a phone-]
>Call TO me". If I said "Write me" (I can't imagine saying this in 99% of
>conversations) it's 99% probable that someone would understand what I
>meant.
>
You could say 'mail me' if three words is too much effort.
Get yerself a club or a torch, & beat 'em or burn 'em!
You should see the Alice I did for my restorative art project...
It's pretty good, if I do say so myself...
I'm so transparent. I think I might be wrong as well, but we'll move
on.
> Absolutely. Without the preposition, the word "me" becomes the
direct
> object of the transitive verb, instead of the dative case (indirect
> object?) of the intransitive verb. This would mean writing "me" the
same
> way one would write a book or write a song.
Nah, cause you can say "email me" and that doesn't mean put me into an
electronic text message and send me somewhere. It's like "give me
that" which means "give that to me".
We're just trying to protect you from people taking a piss out of you
for your dodgy English.
Oo da bloody ell used 'ironic' in un improper context? Get im, lads!
Speak for yourself, duckie.
I think you got it right, actually. Accusative case is when a noun is
the object of a verb ("Bob" in "I punched Bob") and dative case is when
the noun is... uh... where the verb is going or pointing or indicating,
or something ("Canada" in "I sent a parcel to Canada").
I think... maybe... My linguistic skills are getting rusty.
> Nah, cause you can say "email me" and that doesn't mean put me into an
> electronic text message and send me somewhere. It's like "give me
> that" which means "give that to me".
Email is a weird one, though - the case of the following noun varies
with context. You can email a person and you can email a file. I don't
think that is true for the more conventional "mail" or "write".
As for "give me that"... no, I don't think that's right either. The
two phrases a synonymous, but that doesn't necessarily mean one is an
alternative version of the other.
Oh, fuck this. Let's go get drunk.
Waiter! One poofy cocktail to table six!
Hey, someone else started the linguistics chat. I just joined in
because I am a shameless addict.
I studied it for three and a half bloody years. I have to use that
knowledge SOMETIME!!!
J'ACCUSE!
And I'm a Professor of White Trash and Redneck Studies at Colgate
Univeristy. *sniffs arrogantly*
Has a time-travel-by-hypnosis theme, which would put it more squarely
into the mysticism or even SF pot, rather than realism, neo or not.
Agreed. Bring me a drink/bring a drink to me.
Hanging around outside Burger King watching the trailer trash come and
go hardly makes you a professor...
What makes Witchfinder General an example of neo-realism?
>What makes Witchfinder General an example of neo-realism?
Um, the fact that there was a genuine attempt at realism? Neo-realism
wasn't just a course on mid-20th Century Italian cinema. It
encompassed literature, drama, art, and cinema, and wasn't just
regional & cultural specific. Neo-realism was revived realism in the
20th century in art forms where impressionism, influential slick
Hollywood studioism & other less naturalistic approaches had
previously reigned supreme.
> From: Wormwood <insectfear...@yahoo.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.horror
> Reply-To: insectfear...@yahoo.com
>
> On Fri, 20 May 2005 13:05:15 GMT, Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia
> <ne...@newb.com> wrote:
>
>>What makes Witchfinder General an example of neo-realism?
>
> Um, the fact that there was a genuine attempt at realism?
You mean like having good guys and bad guys, instead of that stupid moral
ambiguity stuff? Other than the rape scene--may have been rather novel for
that time period--I don't see it, certainly not in the same vein as Bicycle
Thief. MARK OF THE DEVIL was way more realistic--as people holding the
real power are rarely ever punished in real life. And you like IDENTITY--
yes, with thine own words I condemn thee!
>You mean like having good guys and bad guys, instead of that stupid moral
>ambiguity stuff? Other than the rape scene--may have been rather novel for
>that time period--I don't see it, certainly not in the same vein as Bicycle
>Thief. MARK OF THE DEVIL was way more realistic--as people holding the
>real power are rarely ever punished in real life. And you like IDENTITY--
>yes, with thine own words I condemn thee!
I think you just liked "Mark Of The Devil" (written & directed by and
starring gay men) because of the sexual tension between Herbert Lom &
Udo Kier. :Þ
It was pretty durn intense, wurn't it?