For this blog follower dedication review, I decided to take a different approach when choosing the next film. Instead of the usual system that I apply to these posts, I chose a film that felt like an appropriate choice for ‘31 Spooks of October’, the event I’ve been participating in. Since K, the creator of this event and K at the Movies, wrote about vampire related short stories recently, I thought that reviewing Vampyr would be very fitting. Last week, I was nominated for the Liebster Award by the Brannan sisters from Pure Entertainment Preservation Society! In their article, they offered an invitation to their Third Annual Great Breening Blogathon. Because the purpose of this event is to promote the preservation of the Breen Code, I felt that I had an understanding of the kind of entry that the Brannan sisters were looking for, especially since I participated in “Clean Movie Month” and “A Month Without the Code”. Vampyr was released in 1932, so through this review, I will try to determine how the Breen Code could be applied to this film!
Things I liked about the film:
The cinematography: While watching Vampyr, I was very impressed by the cinematography! Because this movie was created in the early ‘30s, some of the visual tricks that the film’s creative team incorporated into their project felt like they were ahead of their time. Throughout the movie, there were shadows that were presented inside an abandoned warehouse and around the grounds of a hotel and a mansion. When the protagonist, Allan Gray, first sees these shadows, one of them is seen digging in reverse. This is something that audiences probably take for granted today, but was revolutionary back then.
The music: All of the music in this movie was orchestral, similar to silent films. It was used to effectively convey the mood of each scene. Whenever there was a part of the film that was suspenseful, eerie music could be heard. There was even sad music that was playing when a sad moment was presented on screen. This film’s music helped explain what was happening even when no dialogue was spoken. It became an integral part of this project.
Audio that could be heard: This film was styled and constructed like a silent film. But what’s different about Vampyr is that the orchestral music wasn’t the only audio that could be heard. Audible dialogue from the actors replaced title cards. Things like knocks on doors and ringing bells could be heard by the audience. At one part of the film, the sounds of a parrot were included with the visual presentation of the bird. In a film that was created in this specific way, hearing all these sounds was a pleasant surprise!
What I didn’t like about the film:
A limited presence of vampires: When a movie’s creative team assigns a particular title to their project, they make a promise to their audience about what they can expect from the movie. With Vampyr, the subject of vampires wasn’t brought up until thirty-four minutes into the film. The very first vampire was revealed in the second half of the movie. In this project, vampires don’t play as big of a role as I expected. This shows that the creative team didn’t exactly fulfill the promise that they had made.
A simplistic story: For a movie like Vampyr, a sense of mystery in the story is to be expected. However, this plot felt too straight-forward. While there was a little bit of mystery, it wasn’t enough to maintain a consistent level of intrigue. It felt like the script put more emphasis on explaining through visuals what was going on instead of letting the visuals present things as they are. One perfect example is when a book about vampires is given to Allan Gray, in an effort to tell him what’s about to happen. It caused the narrative to be more simplified than it needed to be.
Some confusion: During this film, there were times when it felt like some of the mystery was kept at an arm’s length from the audience. Even though these mysteries were solved, it took awhile for the answers to be presented. Throughout the film, there was one character that kept reappearing. The audience didn’t learn who this person was until after thirty minutes. This extended explanation caused some confusion to happen in the narrative.
My overall impression:
Before I share my overall impression of Vampyr, I want to thank all of my followers for helping 18 Cinema Lane reach this milestone! Every success that happens here is because you gave this blog a chance! Speaking of chances, I’m glad I gave this film a chance! While it had its errors, I ended up liking it more than I expected. The creative team behind this project adopted story-telling elements that were creative and interesting. Before watching this film, I learned that Vampyr was restored through the incorporation of two different versions of the movie. In the opening credits, there were a lot of names listed, indicating who was involved in the restoration process. This raises a good point of how many people it takes to restore a film. It makes me appreciate the work that’s involved in a cinematic procedure like this. Because this movie was released in 1932, it means that it wasn’t approved by the Breen Code. If it had been created two years later, these are the things that would need to change in order to meet Breen Code standards:
- During the film’s introduction, it was said that the main character, Allan Gray, studies the subjects of “devil worship and vampires”. While the story does contain vampires, the first part of that statement would need to be rewritten.
- When the subject of vampires is being explained, there were several references to “The Dark One”. Even though vampires are meant to be villainous in this film, any mentions of “The Dark One”, would need to be rewritten or omitted.
- There were two times when God’s name was said in vain and one swear word was included in the script. New word choices would have to be made before production started.
- In one scene, a pool of blood was shown on screen. This scene would have to be removed.
- A few dead bodies can be seen on screen. These scenes should be rewritten, in order for the deaths to be implied.
Overall score: 7.6 out of 10
Have you seen Vampyr? Is there a film from the 1930s that you want me to see? Tell me in the comment section!
Have fun at the movies!
10 thoughts on “Take 3: Vampyr Review + 145 Follower Thank You”
Thank you so much for participating in our blogathon! This is a great article. I have never seen this film, but the points you made are all very valid breening suggestions. You did a great job. Thank you!
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re welcome and thanks for reading my review, Tiffany! Looking forward to hearing what your next blogathon will be about!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: The Third Annual Great Breening Blogathon is Here! | pure entertainment preservation society
Great review, very spooky!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, K! I’m glad you enjoyed reading it!
Pingback: Breening Thursdays | pure entertainment preservation society
Pingback: Spooky Tales of Supernatural Horrors – K at the Movies
Pingback: My ‘31 Spooks of October’ Wrap-Up – 18 Cinema Lane
Great review! I also loved the effects with the shadows, which took a lot of work to be accomplished in 1932. I see how straightforward the story was, and I wonder if there are still a few scenes lost that make it more interesting…
Thanks for the kind comment!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for reading my review, Le! You’re right about the effects, as it was ahead of its time for the ’30s. You also bring up a good point when it comes to potential missing scenes. Since one out of three versions is totally lost, I question how different it was from the German and French versions. I’m just thankful that someone or some group took the time to restore this film and save it from being lost altogether.