Does anybody understand this stuff?

At the time this movie was filmed (1967, 1968) there were still some prohibitions on nudity in film. And, in fact, nudity in film was still quite new at that time. Perhaps I should say that nudity had only been reintroduced in films as there had been "artistic nudity" in films that predated the Hays Moral Code of 1934. Now, Europe (in France at least) was not restricted by the Hays Moral Code and some nudity in European films was introduced sometime in the mid 1950s, but there were some still some restrictions in place until a few years after this film was made.

In the late 1960s Rollin could show the undraped breasts, butts, and hips of the women. However, he had to be careful to not show their genital areas; which certainly restricted some of the eroticism in this film. Also, explicit sexual scenes of the sort that were shown in "Blood for Dracula" (filmed just a few years later) were very much taboo in the late 1960s. If you wanted to show a vampire couple "doing the deed" you had to put them in a closed coffin(which was done in this film). That also certainly took out some of the eroticism. Oh, I am sure he could have done a little better in the erotic category even within the confines he was in, but he was probably also somewhat worried about the U.S. market for his films with its even more retricted associated taboos at that time. As for the other films of Rollins: Lets just say the French have different tastes and leave it at that.

Watched Viol du Vampire today (my fifth or sixth Rollin film) and found the first half pretty decent but, like most viewers, was pretty confused and close to bored during the second half. According to Rollin himself in the accompanying featurette, producer Sam Selsky told him to add some naked girls so that he could sell the film. So, the nudity is not integrated into the film as well as in his other films and, I agree, is not terribly erotic. I actually found the queen of the vampires the sexiest woman in the film and she never shows any skin.

You also have to realize that this was Rollin's first feature, expanded from a short film, which explains a lot of the incoherence. That and the fact that they somehow lost the script three days in, so did a lot of improvising and shooting from memory. I was able to follow the skeleton of the story OK, though a lot of the details were pretty muddy. In an interview on the DVD, Jean-Pierre Bouyxou states that Rollin hired a lot of nonprofessionals as actors because he didn't get along with and perhaps actually feared professional actors a bit.

As far as scripting goes, I don't think Rollin's films are really about telling a story. They're about mood, poetry, and surrealism. If that's not enough for you, that's understandable and perfectly OK. But not every movie has to tell a coherent story. Rollin was trying to avoid mainstream moviemaking, wanted to break taboos, give audiences something they hadn't seen before. After watching the featurette and interviews on the new DVD, I was much more forgiving of Viol's rough spots and dull stretches, and I'd actually like to watch it again sometime.

I agree that his films can be confounding and are usually a bit rough around the edges. But any of his movies, to me, are infinitely more interesting than any dozen Jerry Bruckheimer movies put together. Incidentally, my favorite Rollin pictures are Shiver of the Vampires and The Nude Vampire, both of which have much more understandable, linear storylines. If you haven't seen either of those, you might want to give them a try before you give up on Rollin completely.