Archive for Christopher Lee

The Costumier is Always Right

Posted in FILM with tags , , , , , on December 21, 2015 by dcairns

DSC_0604

Herbert Lom

Visiting Angels, the UK’s largest costume house, for the first time, I got entranced by their gallery of stills, many of them signed, showing movie and theatre stars of bygone days. I liked them particularly because they don’t seem to have been updated for aeons, and some luminaries still have pride of place despite having sunk to the status of subluminaries or even nonluminaries. Sinclair Hill, anyone? I may be unusual among visitors to Angels in that I was kind of thrilled to find a photo of the director of BRITANNIA OF BILLINGSGATE and the minor Jessie Matthews vehicle THE MAN FROM TORONTO.

Here are some better-known persons, some expressing their gratitude to Monty Berman, costumier-in-chief.

DSC_0606

Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee

DSC_0600

Edward Fox — father of our leading man, Freddie Fox

DSC_0597

Most of the costumes at Angels are on the racks, waiting to be used again, but two stand in pride of place: Indiana Jones, and this fellow. I would never have dared to touch its hem, but as I was taking a pic of a still of John Philip Law, I brushed against it, so now I can say I have done so.

I took lots of bad snaps, so if you want to see more (Hayley Mills! Hugh Williams!) just let me know.

 

Count Sherlock Summerisle Dooku de Richleau

Posted in FILM with tags , , on June 15, 2015 by dcairns

thedevilridesout01

My Christopher Lee tribute/obituary/reminiscence is up at The Chiseler.

I wasn’t sure how Fiona’s brother Roddy would take the sad news. He knows Christopher Lee was an actor, and therefore mortal. But he also seems to believe in Dracula as a real person, though perhaps not real the way his sister or his care workers are real. Real like Jesus, maybe. Or Santa Claus, whom he also purports to believe in, but probably just for fun.

A week or so ago he asked me “Has Christopher Lee made any more DRACULA films?” — so it was a matter of ongoing interest. On Friday he rang up and said, “Have you heard the sad news?” So he took it much the same way we did. You shouldn’t get TOO upset about the death of aged celebrities you’ve never met. But we did all WANT to get to meet him, someday.

The Murderers

Posted in FILM, Theatre with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 8, 2014 by dcairns

vlcsnap-2014-02-08-01h03m53s242

“Larry is deeply, and I mean deeply, stupid,” says Orson Welles to Henry Jaglom. But it can’t have been altogether true, can it? Of course, some great artists may be brilliant in their own field and painfully naive outside of it, but I’d hold up Olivier’s first three films as evidence that he had something on the ball. Of course, they each have one foot in theatre, and so does their star — how could it be otherwise? But when a filmmaker like Polanski comes out and says Olivier was a great movie director, one should take notice.

I enjoyed Olivier’s RICHARD III in its splendidly restored Criterion release, looking brand new and almost painfully crisp. Fiona disliked his nose and didn’t stay for the rest. “It’s not human!” she protested. I pointed to Douglas Wilmer, down the cast list a bit, sporting a comparable schnozzola. “I think Larry saw that and said ‘Get me one of those.'” Both snouts proceed at a thirty degree angle like an exact continuation of the actors’ foreheads. I was still marveling at this feat of nature and the makeup department when Stanley Baker shows up with his brow overhanging dangerously, a cranial escarpment that defies gravity. His eyes look like they’re straining to hold it all up.

Olivier apparently felt he made a mistake casting Ralph Richardson, and wished he could have gotten Orson for the part of Buckingham. I see his problem — Richardson is a shade too real. While Gielgud makes a song out of everything, and Olivier is Mr. Punch made flesh, Richardson plays a political villain with no hint of artificial “characterisation” — he just says the words beautifully, guided by their rhythm, letting his steely, slightly mad stare hold our attention. Explaining his decision to use theatrical sets in HENRY V, Olivier said he feared otherwise the audience would say, “So that’s a house, and that’s a tree, and that’s a field; why is everyone talking so funny?” Heightened artifice in the production design matches Shakespeare’s blank verse. So the problem with Richardson is that his very convincing-ness isn’t in keeping. It’s not that he’s naturalistic — Richardson was slightly unreal even in real life — it’s just that he’s not one the (putty) nose, like everyone else. If Olivier’s Richard is a villain, what is Ralph? I expected him to turn out to be a good guy.

vlcsnap-2014-02-04-23h50m02s209

We also get a nubile Bernard Hepton (I think I spotted him blowing a bugle), also credited quaintly for “sword play”, but most enchanting are the murderers, played by Michaels Gough & Ripper, two giants of the Hammer horror realm which doesn’t even exist in 1955. But who could be better? I’m reminded that Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing are both in Olivier’s HAMLET, separately. Presumably, when I watch HENRY V again, I’m going to suddenly recognize Madeline Smith and Ingrid Pitt.

Towards the end, Richard draws the positions of his troops in the dust using his sword-point. And Olivier cuts to a wide of Bosworth Field, and the full-scale army is painted into place by a giant sword-tip, descending lightly from the heavens. Maybe it’s the kind of thing that, when you have something like it, you need to have a couple more things like it to make it fit into the overall style. But it’s brilliant and bold and breathtaking — this man is not stupid.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 680 other followers