MovieChat Forums > The Vampire Lovers (1970) Discussion > An ok adaptation of the Carmilla novella...

An ok adaptation of the Carmilla novella, but not great.

posted 15 years ago by Mithrandir-Olorin33
9 replies | jump to latest

In general I don't think the more graphic and violent style of Hammer suits the more Atmospheric tone of the original novel. While seeing more blatant graphic Lesbian context was certainly great on one level, the more between the lines nature of the novel was part of the appeal.

Ingrid Pitt is very Sexy, but I don't think she's quite right for Carmilla, at 33 she was older then Carmilla was supposed to appear to be for one thing, about 18-19. And while she has a great Body I'm not actually that impressed by her facial features. Her acting is good, though a little overdone at times.

Like most Dracula Adaptations they did some mixing and matching with the names, mainly making Laura the name of The General's niece, rather then the main victim of the film. A completely random decision I don't get the point of at all.

Also they made Carmilla older then The Book implies, dating her "Death" to 1545 or was it 47? When her Portrait in the book is dated to 1698.

The Man in Black would have been done better if we never got a clear look at his face, like the Character also called by that same title in Halloween 5. That was very well done, After seeing Halloween 6 my eyes always trick me into vaguely seeing Mitch Ryan's face when I rewatch 5.

But in Lust for a Vampire that is quite obviously NOT the same person filling that role.

But despite these flaws and some others it is an entertaining film.

"It's not about money

It's about sending a Message

Everything Burns!"

[–] SAlexLindsay 15 years ago

I don't see any of the above as flaws, and wouldn't judge a film simply by how close it follows the literature that partly inspired it.
At the end of the day the film is another medium and has its own identity, if this film had been made any other way, it wouldn't have been Hammer horror. Tudor Gates took as little or as much of LeFanu as was in the interests of his own original work, The Vampire Lovers. I thought the violence was actually used quite sparingly, but it had impact because it was well handled.
As for Ingrid Pitt, she really MADE The Vampire Lovers, I think she has one of the most striking and beautiful faces I've ever seen on screen, but that's down to taste I guess.

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin33 14 years ago

Kinda my point, a Hammer film isn't how Camarilla should have been adapted.

"It's not about money.... It's about sending a Message..... Everything Burns!!!"

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin33 14 years ago

I should elaborate a bit more.

In the Book the Seduction of Laura isn't just Sexual, it's very emotional and intense, sometimes I think more modern writers feel like their obligated to do what older ones couldn't get away with, but the more Classy way the Lesbian content is handled in the book is much more erotic to me then just constantly watching busty women rip each other's cloths off.

I also don't like them adding a male love interest, that felt like a needless add on to me, as though the film makers wanted to assure the religious people watching they weren't actually approving of Lesbianism.

And in the book Laura goes with to Karnstein castle at the end, in this film Carmilla's victim becomes just a Damsel in Distress, not the person through whose eyes the story is being told.

"It's not about money.... It's about sending a Message..... Everything Burns!!!"

[–] changedname 11 years ago

I agree with your interpretation of it completely. The movie would have been great if they just followed the plot exactly, no switching or changing, adding characters, male love interest or any of that. There should have been a lot more nudity, sex scenes, embracing and real romantic love, a bit like a Jess Franco film but with Hammer production qualities. That's what the novella was supposed to be about - the whole forbiddenness (errr, made up word) of lesbianism was a major part of it. There was one great line in the novella: "Now Carmilla, you are going to start again with your wild nonsense", and there was very little resembling this in the movie. It was supposed to be a romance, not all this sneaking around and pointless extraneous scenes and characters.

Possibly they were trying to be too "sophisticated" about simple and beautiful plots like Carmilla as if trying to disassociate themselves from the Franco-style movies, and in the end it turns out very uneven and even a bit of a mess in places when they should have left it alone and emphasized the romantic story above all.

[–] matheusmarchetti 14 years ago

I personally find 1960´s "Blood and Roses" to be a much better adaptation of "Carmilla" (and it´s also my second favorite horror film). The story strays away from the novella even more so than "Vampire Lovers" but still, it has the same tone and feel of LaFanu´s work - it is subtle, beautiful and melancholic, yet creepy and macabre at the same time. Also, whenever I read the novella I can´t help but to picture Annette Vadim and Elsa Martinelli as Carmilla and Laura respectively.

The theater is like a faithful wife. The film is the great adventure, the costly, exacting mistress

[–] BatBanks 11 years ago

Does anyone seen the one with Meg Tilly and Roddy McDowell in 1989 series called Nightmare Classic in Youtube or any websites, I seen it was an interesting version of Carmilla.

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin33 10 years ago

It at least used to be on Youtube, but chopped up. Amazon sells it's VHS still

"When the chips are down... these Civilized people... will Eat each Other"

[–] ChristianeK 10 years ago

I too think this is entertaining film, I love those beautifully shot Gothic trappings, but I get your point.