Did anyone else have a hard time grasping what was going on?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Mark of the Vampire
Cliff_Clavin — 15 years ago(October 25, 2010 03:27 AM)
Let me start off by saying I absolutely loved this movie, you can't go wrong with Barrymore and Lugosi in a movie. But man, I'M SO CONFUSED! This seems like the deleted scenes probably would have explained a lot.
-
Forgotten_Hero — 15 years ago(November 02, 2010 06:29 PM)
A year before the events in which the film took place, Baron Otto Montay murdered Irena's father when he would not consent in giving her hand in marriage and placed the blame on the local vampire superstitions. Some time later, Professor Zalen and Inspector Neumann found an exact double of Irena's father and came up with a plan to hypnotise Montay into incriminating himself for the murder of Irena's father. They hired actors to play the role of vampires in order to psyche Montay out and place him in a vulnerable mental state. The plan proved successful and the case was solved, right down to exposing the method of execution.
Yeah, it's definitely missing some material, but the story wasn't coherent on any level to begin with. It's an excuse to include vampires, hypnotism, and a twist ending. The heated cup was something of a cop-out as well. You couldn't drain a human being of their blood by such a method and, in any event, Montay had no way of storing it as the small glass was the only container available to him. -
Forgotten_Hero — 15 years ago(November 09, 2010 07:43 PM)
Thanks for clarifying.
Glad I could be of service.
You mean the Baron didn't hire the vampires? That was the impression I was under. He did it to scare everyone. Your saying, if I understand correctly, that the professor hired the vampires?
Either the professor or the inspector, yes. In one scene, Irena tells the actor playing her father that she can't go through with the act. The professor then tells her that she must if they're to be successful. Irena later apologizes to Fedor for not letting him in on the act. So yeah, I think that the vampires were hired by the good guys.
In the original version, London After Midnight, the professor
was
the vampire and, at the end of the movie, he explained that he disguised himself as a vampire in order to frighten the guilty party into a state in which he'd be easily susceptible to hypnotism. So yeah, a lot was lost in the translation.
Also, at the end, the actors are in a congratulatory mood. I don't think that they'd be too happy if their employer found himself arrested for murder. Even if they were paid in advance, they'd be accomplices to a murder coverup and the police would be looking for them next. -
preppy-3 — 13 years ago(August 29, 2012 08:51 AM)
Hate to burst your bubble but the chances of ever seeing "London After Midnight" are nonexistent. The only known print was destroyed in a warehouse fire back in the 1950s. If somebody had a print of it I think they would have come across with it by now. BTW Turner Classic Movies DID show a version of "London" using pictures taken from the original print. I wasn't too impressed by it but u might find it interesting if they ever air it again.
-
BitterMan23 — 13 years ago(February 16, 2013 10:18 AM)
I wouldn't say non-existent. There's always a chance it's discovered in a private collection of an owner who either didn't know he had it, or was unaware how valuable it was. Same as any rare comic or baseball card that's discovered in an attic or storage unit after someone dies.
http://www.horrormovieaday.com -
first-things-first — 11 years ago(October 31, 2014 06:18 AM)
I enjoyed this because of the original. So I subconsciously filled in the blanks. I wonder if I would have had I not seen the excellent silent version.
If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world -
jsk32870 — 9 years ago(November 18, 2016 10:01 PM)
Yes this was a mess. Once we discover at the end of the film that Mora and Luna were actors hired to trap the Baron, how could they have been 'set up' as part of the trap to be accused of the original murder of Sir Karell? They were not around at the time! They were only hired later, after Sir Karell was already dead. And that begs the questionwhen exactly
were
they hired? Two weeks ago? Two months ago? Ten months ago? How long did they carry on this charade? The way the story unfolds, it appears they (the actors) have only been around a few days or a week at most, but somehow they are being blamed for a murder that occurred a year ago? And the dead Sir Karrell has been dormant for a year, but now suddenly wakes up to accompany Mora around the graveyard and castle? That's weak.
Even weaker is the idea that 'real' vampires suddenly appeared at all. Yes we are told that the town believed in vampires, but there was no actual proof of this shown. Just what happened to Sir Karell, which of course was not the work of any vampire. I haven't see anyone mention this yet, but the Baron must have been astonished at his incredible good fortune, in that he murdered someone and staged it as a vampire killing, and then a year later some actual vampires show up and continue on with attacks! Gee how lucky is that lol. He seems quite ready to believe that there are some actual vampires around now (even tried to kill one), but again, Mora and Luna were not around when he killed Sir Karell. Wouldn't he find it odd to see the man he knows he killed walking around with a vampire? Viewing the film none of this was an issue at the time because we didn't know the 'actual' story - once we do, then it doesn't really add up.