Le viol du vampire

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.