Le viol du vampire

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.