Opiniones de usuarios

When Jean Rollin died earlier this month, cult-cinema lost an iconic director who always made exactly the films he wanted to. Rollin is considered a true master by many of my fellow Eurohorror fans. Admittedly, I have never counted myself among his biggest fans. While Rollin's visual and atmospheric mastery is undeniable, I found most of the confused and weird plots of his films to be rather low on substance. The fantastic 1978 Zombie film "Les Raisins de la Mort" (aka. "The Grapes of Death") and the interesting "La Morte Vivante" ("The Living Dead Girl", 1982) are the two exceptions to this. However, it must also be seen to Rollin's credit that he never seemed to care to give his films a conventional storyline and therefore arguably make them more accessible. Rollin is primarily known for his countless Erotic Vampire films, which are usually visually stunning, atmospheric and highly artistic but utterly weird and confused.

Rollin's feature length debut "Le Viol Du Vampire" aka. "The Rape of the Vampire" aka. "Queen of the Vampires" (1968) is one of the films that epitomize Rollin's style of filmmaking. Since it was made in the 60s the film is not quite as explicitly sleazy as Rollin's 70s and 80s efforts, but doubtlessly incredibly sleazy for its day. Visually, this black and white film is maybe even more astounding than Rollin's later efforts. The film has a beautiful and eerie Gothic atmosphere from the very beginning, and every sequence is filmed with sinister elegance. The first half of the film is generally interesting to watch. Sadly, it gets somewhat tedious in the second half.

"Le Viol Du Vampire" was originally meant to be a short film, which would have probably suited the film better. However, Rollin decided to make it a feature length film; therefore, the film is divided in two chapters, the second of which is the longer, more confused and more tedious one. As it is the case with most of Rollin's Erotic Vampire films, it doesn't really make sense to give a plot description here. The first chapter, which is about 30 minutes long has a confused storyline, but one that is interesting enough to be saved by visual beauty and atmosphere. The second chapter, which is an hour long has some interesting moments, but overall it is way too long and doesn't make a lick of sense, which makes it quite tedious to say the least. As it is the case in every Rollin film, the female cast members are beautiful and have exhibitonist tendencies. The appearance of many hot naked women, Sadomasochistic scenes which must have been outrageous at the time, and a whole lot of bizarre stuff is vaguely enough to make "Le Viol Du Vampire" rewarding, however. Most of the second chapter just seems to be an excuse to make the film longer, and it shows. Overall, most of "Le Viol Du Vampire" is Rollin-typical visually astonishing nonsense, with a beautiful female cast and a mesmerizing score.

R.I.P. Jean Rollin. While I personally will probably never be one of his most enthusiastic fans it is undeniable that the man did exactly the films that he wanted to make, and very obviously didn't care to meet any accepted standards. Even though "Le Viol Du Vampire" is somewhat tiresome, and therefore only recommendable to those who like Rollin's weird style of filmmaking, it has to be considered a classic of Erotic Eurohorror and pioneering Erotic Vampire film. The atmosphere and visual style are stunning. Nonetheless it is hard to watch the film all the way through without getting bored. One for Rollin-fans.

Popular French art/cult director Jean Rollin's first foray into the horror genre calls itself a two-part melodrama and is divided into two segments that overlap; "Part One: The Rape of the Vampire" and "Part Two: The Vampire Women." In the first portion (which is the shorter of the two), psychoanalyst Thomas, his friend Marc and Marc's girlfriend Brigitte go to a mansion to investigate claims of vampirism. Living at the large country home are four psychologically troubled young women who are rumored to be ageless vampires by the superstitious townspeople. The villagers try to keep the women inside at all times by staking crosses everywhere and using a weird-looking, hairy-faced scarecrow that an old man provides the voice for. Thomas suspects the women have been brainwashed into believing they're actually vampires when it fact they're not, and sets out to get to the bottom of things. Even though the acting's not great, the dialogue is terrible and the editing is horrible, this segment is visually very beautiful. The images, the camera set-ups, the framing of shots and the clarity of the black-and-white photography are all done well. The director also proves to have a nice eye for detail, outdoor scenery, light and shadow. The art direction is also good, and though the storyline is a bit muddled it's still not too difficult to follow. Unfortunately, immediately after this shorter portion concludes, the film basically falls apart and it never recovers.

With several of the principals either dead or turned into vampires at the end of "Rape," we now enter the second segment "The Queen of the Vampires." The "Queen" is an arrogant short-haired woman who is carried around on a bed by two of her goons and has a bunch of hipster followers at her side to do her bidding. No clue what she really wants or what's driving her, but it seems like she's power mad and wants to put on some kind of theatrical wedding where two people will have sex in a coffin that's nailed shut. She and her minions have also blackmailed a doctor into trying to come up with a cure for vampirism. They have turned the doctor's girlfriend into a vampire to edge him along. Several characters from the first segment wander in and out every once in awhile. It's all extremely confusing to watch and hard to keep track of what's going on, who is who and what it is whoever is trying to accomplish. This second and much longer portion also seems more rushed and less stylish than the first. It's also full of continuity errors and hacky editing splices that make it even more confusing. Both segments feature plenty of T&A shots, which were quite risqué for 1967 I'm sure.

Discounting Rollin's super-cheesy living dead disaster ZOMBIE LAKE (which even his most devoted fans have a hard time defending), this is my first real look at the work of this director. I see a fantastic visual stylist with a lot of potential who needs a little help on his narrative structure and pacing. A happy medium can be met. Throwing a little clarity in every once in awhile never hurt a film. Of course, some people can and will defend the most senseless films ever made as long as they look good, calling them "poetic" or "dream-like" or "experimental." That's perfectly fine if this is a masterpiece in some people's eyes, but to me a movie this illogical really needs to sustain that other-worldly feel throughout to keep me interested. The first segment almost seemed to hit the right note, but the second didn't even come close. I'll certainly still check out more films from Rollin based on the positives here even though I was less than enthusiastic about this effort.

The Rape of the Vampire marks the directorial debut of French erotic vampire enthusiast Jean Rollin. The film was originally intended to be a thirty minute short; but someone had the bright idea of making it a feature film, so Jean Rollin went ahead, filmed another hour of dubious vampire nonsense and released the combined parts as a feature film. It sounds like a recipe for disaster; and since a disaster resulted from it, I guess that's exactly what it was. I really don't know how someone could have shot this movie and put it together like this without realising that it doesn't make an ounce of sense! This is almost to be expected from the second story, which is basically just an hour of filler - but even the first tale doesn't adhere to any kind of logic (except maybe Jean Rollin's!). There is a plot here somewhere, though, and to start off with it follows four vampire sisters. We then move into the second part, which follows the vampire queen; played by a skinhead who looks a bit like Grace Jones. Exactly what's going on is anyone's guess - but those are the basic story backbones.

In terms of plotting and substance, this film is a joke. However; in terms of style, it's a little more credible. The black and white cinematography looks almost like Jean Rollin was going for a French nouvelle vogue style, and it is nice to look at. It's not nice enough for you to forget that you're watching a really boring film, but at least the film has plus points. Rape of the Vampire does look low budget - but good plots don't cost anything if you're writing them yourself, and so this film's main problems can't be blamed on the budget. Rollin has got together a wealth of hot young French girls to star in the film, and while it doesn't compensate for the plot; at least the casting might stop you from falling asleep. Considering it was made in 1967, the film is fairly graphic; we've got a scene that sees a girl have her eyes poked out (although we don't actually see it) and there's plenty of nudity, of course. I'm not really sure what kind of person this film will appeal to. Pretentious film fans may find something to like about it; but if you're not a Jean Rollin completist, I really can't think of a reason to bother with this.

After a psychoanalyst unsuccessfully tries to convince four sisters that they are not 200 year old vampires, the Queen of the Vampires (Jacqueline Sieger) promulgates the cause of the Undead.

Having watched Jean Rollin's "Nude Vampire" before this, I can say one thing: Rollin works better in black and white. His stark composition recalls some of Roman Polanski's better films (such as "Repulsion") and is just beautiful to look at. While the second half is completely incoherent if we focus on plot (which we should not do with Rollin), the film as a whole has images to show us that cannot be put down.

A newspaper at the time of the film's release said "we can only remain puzzled by the intentions of the director, Jean Rollin." Even Rollin himself admitted that it was confusing. He would later say, "Le Viol was a terrible scandal... People were really mad when they saw it. In Pigalle, they threw things at the screen. The principal reason was that nobody could understand the story."

But perhaps this is alright? When Luis Bunuel or Salvador Dali release nonsense, it is a work of art... when Rollin does it, we call it "nonsense". Where does one end and the other begin?

I don't know how to properly describe this film, because I don't think this film knows what it is. The film is structured in two parts even though the second part is direct continuation of the first. There is some lovely black and white photography that is really clear and shows a good eye for detail. The problems I have with this film come with how the story is told, there are continuity errors. The editing is muddled and makes things unclear, whether this was intentional or not, I believe it hurts the viewers experience. There are characters who just do things, without any reasons for it, so the story just kind of, happens with no reason as to why. There a lot of shots containing female nudity, and I'm not against that, but usually there's a reason, in this film there's just boobs, in frame, like they are just there. Some the acting combined with the bad editing choices made me laugh aloud or talk to myself, questioning why or what just happened, but this film isn't so bad it's good. Overall I would say the experience is OK, like watch the film if you are a big fan of the director or vampire movies or just weirdness, it just wasn't my thing.

On the one hand, 'Le Viol du Vampire' feels like an art film taking a painstakingly restrained approach to vampires. The voiceovers, the stilted delivery and movement, the subdued moments of what would be robust action, the inelegant and sparing realization of scenes, the camerawork, the music, the dialogue, and more: Every single aspect seems purposefully, concretely deliberate and ham-handed, brought to fruition with only the most sparing, delicate, and softest of touches. This is most especially reflected in the first half hour - the first part of the film, which accordingly was originally intended as only a short - but is certainly a consistent truth throughout the whole length. It is one of the most understated and underhanded stories about vampires I've seen to date, and considering as well that it marked the first feature of filmmaker Jean Rollin, it wouldn't be wrong either to say that this comes across as the avant-garde project of a film student. For all that: I really like the core ideas of the narrative. Bare-bones as the production is, owing to a meager budget, against all odds the deeply austere style of the feature is weirdly captivating, refreshing, and gratifying.

That's one perspective. But on the other hand, an alternative point of view: this is pure amateur schlock. I gather that no one appearing in front of the camera was a professional actor, and it shows. Rollin's inexperience is unmistakable in the inauthentic manner in which scenes are arranged and executed, and the technical craft in all regards. What appears through a generous lens to be a light and discriminating brush, through a more critical lens looks to be a heavy-handed, uncaring shove. Some scenes and dialogue are laughably bad as they are presented to us. There is definite plot, but the writing is in every way so loose, weak, and flimsy that it's often difficult to discern what exactly is going on without the aid of an outside source to provide context. Some instances are moments of important plot that are rendered with so little clarity as to be wholly opaque without a secondary analysis; still other sequences pass with no apparent purpose at all, or even perhaps without any meaningful connection to the rest of the plot.

Personally, I'm of the mind that - bizarre as it is - the plainly gawky, undexterous, ascetic, and superficially ungenuine tack of the picture is altogether intriguing - and gratifyingly so. Given its proper due, it would be a very unique and unusual exploration of a horror staple - undoubtedly divisive, but singularly fascinating. Unfortunately, I also recognize that what I perceive and wish is not what 'Les Viol du Vampire' truly represents. I think it's safe to say that the movie before us is the result not of hamstrung artful intent, but of very green, fresh-faced cinema rookies making a feature to the utmost extent of their novice capabilities, and by pure chance hitting on a novel idea in the process. And even if the concept's actualization as we see it were in fact by design, it remains that the writing is far too deficient to achieve the full potential of what this curiosity could have been.

Alas. This is so peculiar. I don't think it's outright bad; rather, I think it's accidentally almost good. I want to like this movie - I want to see a consciously exacting, artistic version of the genre - but its shortcomings are too great. For the most patient and open-minded horror fan, and for fans of Rollin specifically, this is an oddity worth checking out despite its faults. For anyone else, I'm hard-pressed to recommend 'Le Viol du Vampire' - I don't absolutely dislike it, but above all, I just yearn for what could have been.

I truly thought it was made in the 30s.

The bad acting, the jagged B&W cuts, the seeming lack of a plot! (and GOD don't get me started on that unconvincing model the old bloke hides behind that our "vampire queen" reports to!) I don't care if it's supposed to be ironic - it's cheap & amateurish.

The ABYSMAL sword fight - leave it out!!

I'm really sorry, but I watche dthis film and deflated as it went on - it's everything Brecht would have hated, Schechner would have found it a joke, and Sarah Kane probably saw 30 minutes less in than I did.

But hey! I adore Star Trek: Hidden Frontier.

Judge for yourself.

(It AIN'T "Fire walk with me" - that had gravitas!!)

D

Jean Rollin is a director who certainly divides opinion. Even amongst the horror community his films are at most marginally appreciated. The reason for this is that his movies don't really follow conventions of that genre very much at all. They are usually more interested in capturing surreal imagery than scaring the audience. The atmosphere in these films is less sinister and more melancholic. His movies often owe more to experimental cinema than Hammer horror. That said, Rollin's movies certainly belong in the horror genre. It's just that he uses typical iconography of the genre – vampires, graveyards, crumbling Gothic buildings – in unusual ways. The Rape of the Vampire is his debut feature and while it is atypically filmed in black and white, it is essentially pure Rollin. It's basically a template film and he would rework its basic ideas time and again but mostly with better results.

A psychoanalyst visits a château which is inhabited by four vampire sisters. He tries to convince them that they are not in fact vampires at all. An old charlatan seems to be manipulating these women into thinking thus and he eventually turns the local villagers against them. This ends in bloody vengeance. But just as events turn most tragic, in from nowhere enters the Queen of the Vampires. It turns out that these sisters were actually vampires after all.

Are you confused? Yeah well, it doesn't entirely make a lot of sense it has to be said! It wouldn't be very unfair to say that it's a somewhat baffling movie overall. It doesn't really have a very coherent plot-line. Or rather it sort of does and then gets mighty confusing as it progresses. This is down to the fact that it was originally a thirty minute short film that Rollin extended to feature length by adding additional material. Part one is called 'The Rape of the Vampire' and part two 'The Vampire Women'. The first half is easily the best. It's much more cohesive with some excellent photography. The second part of the film introduces several new characters, including the Queen of the Vampires. The problem with it is that it feels like it's tagged on primarily to extend the running time, and there isn't enough ideas to do this effectively. It becomes confusing and lacks the overall style of the earlier part.

The best way to appreciate the film – and Rollin movies in general – is to just take in the odd atmosphere and bizarre imagery. The plot is not ultimately very important to be honest. Like all of the director's films, this one has pretty bad dialogue and amateur acting. So really there's quite a lot the average viewer needs to overlook if they are going to enjoy one of Rollin's films. This one, like all his films, isn't accessible at all. It's extremely left-field and will understandably irritate many who watch it. But for those of you who have a fondness for the strange style of this horror auteur, well this is where it all started and there is plenty to appreciate. It's not one of his stronger efforts to be fair but it's certainly typical enough.

I must begin this review by being honest. This film baffled me. Completely. I didn't understand it. At all. So why the devil am I writing this, you may ask? To urge you to see it. Rollin does for horror films what Suzuki Seijun does for the gangster film, or Leone for the Western - he blows it to pieces to create something otherworldly and new. Although not nearly as well - from what I can make out, Rollin's sensiblity is facile, reactionary, inane and exploitative. But he does have an eye. And what an eye.

I think the film's 'failure' to lucidly communicate is actually the point. I mean, under all the visual verbiage, there is a plot of sorts. Not that I even got this part right. There's this gorgeous French chateau. There are sisters, maybe two, maybe four, who are being controlled by this disembodied voice, who turns out to be an crusty old landowner with a foreign accent. They are being told they are vampires, and one of them keeps remembering the time she was raped by villagers. We are shown images of this event, although neither their temporal status nor reliability is signalled.

Three young, modern, attractive Parisian types arrive for no stated reason at the chateau, spouting psychobabble, convinced that the girls are delusional and mad, needing help. It turns out that the landowner is not in charge at all, but a lesbian vampire queen add her predictably nubile cohorts, and madness ensues as the forces of science and the modern do battle with the undead. The film may be a satire on de Gaullism, conservatism, radicalism, or feminism; or maybe it's just the visual ramblings of a very talented Poe-obsessed teenager. Who knows?

The whole thing is addled, pretentious nonsense. Fragments of this plot get lost in a mass of possibly meaningless symbolism (although I actually know someone who can make everything in TWIN PEAKS: FIRE WALK WITH ME fit coherently, so I'll suspend judgement). But we must remember that horror films traditionally involve a force of meaning eventually triumphing and explaining the forces of evil who would destroy meaning. After PSYCHO, the validity of this was called into question, and the horrors of films like REPULSION and NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD became terrifying precisely because it was not possible to explain them away.

This is presumably Rollin's intention, to destroy the arrogant assumptions of all systems of meaning. The inevitable result of this is chaos, but it's a chaos gorgeous to behold. Rollin has the cherishable flaw of wanting to stick his camera in the most awkward places just to astound us. And he does - there are images here no mainstream director would dare attempt.

The mixture of Gothic, Gallic atmosphere, and a sublime clarity of imagery is stunning. The climactic shoot out also shows how French gangster films, with their concentration on the disintegration of the individual, unlike their US counterparts, have their roots in horror, the mighty FANTOMAS.

Rollin divides his two part melodrama in the middle of the action. The whole film has the feel of a project taken away from its wayward director, and re-edited by blind minions. It is a silly, delirious, wonderful thing, a true 'melodrame' as the subtitle suggests, showing us in a hideous mirror the repetitious cycle of living death we are caught in our everyday lives.

'The Rape of the Vampire' is split up into two parts. While the first segment is rather linear and 'normal', with super-expressive, daring camera angles, the second part, "La Reine Des Vampires" is a lot more confusing, while exhibiting the same level of visual excellence and dreamlike, naive atmosphere. The story is very fragmented and it's hard to follow the ever-multiplying characters. I find films like Franco's 'Succubus' or Jodorowsky's 'Holy Mountain' to be slow and pretentious, but I didn't have have any problem with the similarly haphazard and unstructured 'The Rape of the Vampire' doesn't feel artificial because it's got its heart in the right place, which can be said about majority of Rollin's films. He may not have professional actors, but he nevertheless gets them to deliver emotional performances and create moving, if not realistic, characters. The acting may be unpolished, but Rollin has a gift for drama which he displays more consistently then the other Eurotica directors(Franco, D'Amato) with whom he often gets bundled as a sexploitation director. The story is a mess, but a poetic one, and images are arresting. In terms of cinematography 'The Rape of the Vampire' is more more adventurous than director's more popular films 'Fascination' and 'La Morte Vivante'. I have the warmest feelings for this very brave film and will be re-watching it again.

Jean Rollin's film was not quite like some of his great ones that will be later. For a start, the film is black&white, which has some of the great photography but not quite the wonderful colours that will follow, and also this it is only a short film. For some reason Rollin must have decided he could make it another longer one but there it is a rather odd one. Much of the later is partly excellent but some of it isn't and there are far too many people, with to much dialogue that the story, or what it is, gets lost. It is not much of a good film and it shows that what so much will follow will be wonderful.

A psychoanalyst and his wife go to a château in the country, which is inhabited by four vampire sisters. Rollin's first feature is distinguished by good photography and score, which manage to overcome the bizarreness of the plot and the deliberate pacing. An atmospheric horror classic, but decidedly not for all tastes.

Rape of the Vampire is the debut of French director Jean Rollin, a two-part melodrama expanded from a 30-minute short, with most of the action apparently improvised (Rollin having lost his script three days into the shoot). The result is impenetrable, surreal and extremely hard going.

The first part of the film concerns four women living in an old château, who are convinced that they are vampires. Three Parisians - Thomas (Bernard Letrou), Brigitte (Solange Pradle) and Marc (Marquis Polho) - come to the countryside to try and cure the women of their vampirism, which Thomas believes is all in the mind.

The second chapter - shot by Rollin to bring the film to feature length - involves a vampire queen (Jacqueline Sieger) and her followers, and is pure nonsensical garbage that can be chalked up to inexperience, a lack of focus, and, quite possibly, mind-altering substances (hey, it WAS the late-'60s!).

As with every other Rollin film I have seen, there is plenty of nudity and unusual cinematography, and for many fans that will be enough, but I like to have something resembling a comprehensible plot to go with the boobs and avant-garde imagery. Not having a clue what was going on for most of the film led to my attention waning and the rapid onset of boredom.

2.5/10, rounded down to 2 for the migraine-inducing experimental jazz soundtrack.

First looking at Jean Rollin's debut feature Viol Du Vampire was not very impressing. It looked very cheap, and the editing seemed almost amateurish. After a while though I learned to appreciate the movie's very unique pacing and artistic approach. Its been long since I've seen a movie as pleasant to look at. I found an interesting saying by a user at the amazon page: "Its boring, but in a good way". Which of course doesn't make sense to most people, but try seeing this. Relaxing, yet exciting. The low-tempered experimental music really is nice.

You don't really have to understand what is going on though. Lots of nudity, blood, poetry, interesting characters... Yes, I really enjoyed this! If you like old art-house movies you should try it. Jean Rollins should be deemed as a great great artist.

I had read about Rollin's work for years, but I only recently had the opportunity to see any of his films. This is, to date, the only one I have seen, and it far exceeded my expectations. To call the film "challenging" is an understatement; but, I believe, the director's intent is not to present a coherent narrative, but to indulge in his interest in dark poetry. The film plays less like a conventional "movie" than it does like avant-garde theater, and with this in mind, harsh critiques of the performances and the writing are immaterial. The structure with which the film unfolds makes perfect sense in every way. The monochrome images are stark, beautiful, radically unusual, striking, and unforgettable. Violence and sex scenes are artful as opposed to pornographic (reminding me of Jodorowsky's El Topo in this respect). Individual scenes play well within the format wherein they are presented. The budgetary limitations are negligible: the film's beauty is beyond reproach for all but the most closed-minded or prudish viewers. Approach the film as a two-act visual poem, and its rewards to the viewer will be manifold.

An original, surreal and disturbing film that illustrates better than another movie Rollin's peculiar conception of cinema:a mixture of Gothic horror tale's imaginary , politic surrealism, dark romanticism, pulp comic book aesthetic and camera experimentalism. The film is conceived as a collage of images,inspired by the work of his favourite painter, Clovis Trouille, solution that allows him to blend much of the references of his ambiguous imaginary: the dreamy and dark romanticism poetry of Tristan Corbiere ,the sexy shocker surrealism of Georges Bataille, the thought-provoking and political cinema of Luis Buñuel, the pulp and bizarre style of Gaston Leroux and the poetic realism of Jacques Prevert.A non-narrative vampire tale: half romantic, half conceptual and totally experimental.

Review based on the 90-minutes long version, le viol du vampire.

My initial thought, in the first few seconds of this, is that it looks more like a zombie movie, with people stumbling and fumbling about in a wooded swamp area, instead of a vampire movie.

It became obvious to me early, that this was not going to work as a cohesive whole, but a collection of images: some of them, incredibly beautiful and mezmerising; others, just baffling. Even the baffling images piqued my interest and held my attention.

Example: four chicks in white robes, carrying flaming torches during broad daylight is the next sight, and eventual implications that they are vampires. Later, two of the girls in white robes dueling with épées late at night, while fire burns brightly behind them is another incredible bit of black-and-white imagery. The fire is blown out to the point where it almost looks like black-and-white infrared images.

A favourite, particularly striking, scene occurs approximately 11.30 minutes in, with white-robed brunette carrying a candelabra, walking barefoot upstairs to the rooftop, now shown in high contrast black-and-white. A stunningly beautiful hallucination of an image.

Film seems to be merely an excuse to showcase bizarre visuals, wipes and camera angels, and is all the more better for it. Forget about the plot (if there ever was one) this movie is about visuals. I love this movie for its haunting imagery: the old scarecrow and crosses placed around the Château to keep these alleged vampires inside. The château itself is sprawling and immense; some of it is bathed in sunlight, while other parts of it are in dark shadows, from massive overgrowth.

I cannot decide about its music score, however, which is overpowering, but at the same time, serves to make the film more surreal.

I went in hoping for a French New Wave vampire film ala Truffaut or Godard, an elevated amateurism in a gorgeous aesthetic, and free-spirited vigor; and it succeeded at that from the very first minute. But by the end, I was a fanatic. I did not fully understand the film until I read the booklet, where Rollin said he intended the film to be a serious vampire epic; he was horrified that audiences laughed during every screening. Suddenly the film clicked. This wasn't a FNW deconstruction of the vampire film, he wasn't a Godard refreshing the science fiction serials and noirs in his own eye; 'Rape' is actually an unironic vampire film. The film suddenly becomes outsider art. Because we see outsiders doing genre films sometimes, it's not my thing. But when a director is in France in the 1960s, an image-smith, and making outsider art, you are now in the zone of hard arthouse. Just from the time and place, it can never just be the thing at face value. And the amateurism you would not even think to remark on because it is so thoroughly and confidently staged, and gorgeously photographed. What it lacks in intellect it reaches the same ends through its creative force of will, which is the purpose of film prose. Inherent to the subject of a vampire erotica, its very existence is subversive; audiences only choice is to laugh, or riot. It is why artists are drawn to the Gothic, it is impossible to steer wrong because we understand Gothic. The shorthand is so powerful, nothing needs to be added, so these additional filmic ingredients to Gothic create an overwhelming experience. It was one of the more substantive experiences in my recent goes.

Rape of the Vampire, The (1968)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

When one thinks of Jean Rollin there's no doubt that nudity, vampires and lesbian vampires come to mind. This film here was the first of a long running series featuring undead ladies usually doing their evil deeds while naked. The film starts off with a psychologist trying to convince four sisters that there really aren't vampires who have been walking the Earth for two hundred years. After the four of them are killed by the local villagers an evil Queen brings them back to life. The first thirty-minutes of this film, leading up to the sisters being killed, was originally a short film but when Rollin got the extra money he decided to add another hour and turn it into the feature that would become known as THE RAPE OF A VAMPIRE. Anyone familiar with the work of Rollin will agree that there's certainly more style than substance but this early picture contains very little of either one. I will admit that by the time the movie was over I really didn't understand what I had just watched. The first portion of the film is somewhat easy to follow but once we get everything dealing with the Queen then things just get so twisted that you feel as if you've fallen asleep for an hour only to then wake up and not know what you're seeing. I'm going to guess that this thing was shot extremely quickly and perhaps that's why everything feels so rushed. Or, perhaps director Rollin was just scrambling trying to get anything on film to turn this into a feature. Whatever the reasonings, the end result is that there's very little to enjoy in this thing. I thought the second half of the film looked extremely rushed and not a bit of it contained any real style. The earlier section isn't all that much better but I thought some of the cinematography was very good and this helped add a little atmosphere. While there's some nudity in the film it's certainly not as graphic as later films. The performances are all mixed but then again who comes to a Rollin film for performances? THE RAPE OF THE VAMPIRE will probably have Rollin fans wanting to view it just so they can see where it all started but those new to the director would be best served by checking out on of his later pictures.