Country: USA
In the years since its
release, the hysterically titled I Drink
Your Blood (a bit of a misnomer as not a single drop is imbibed) has built
a steady and resolute cult following. This is largely due to the fact that the
film was the first to receive an X certificate from the MPAA for violence
alone, and also due to the legendary double bill that paired it with Del
Tenney’s largely forgettable zombie dross I
Eat Your Skin (1964). This inspired double feature was the brainwave of
exploitation producer/distributor Jerry Gross. A semi-legendary figure whose
skill at creating alluring film titles (it should be noted that David E.
Durston the director of I Drink Your
Blood wanted the film to be called Phobia),
eye catching posters, and outrageous promotional campaigns resulted in numerous
commercial successes in the Grindhouses and drive ins. By and large the films
Gross produced and distributed are exploitation trash, but the man deserves a
place of importance in film history for producing one of the most significant
films of the 1970’s – Sweet Sweetback’s
Baadasssss Song (1971). Another reason for I Drink Your Blood’s cult success is the resulting effect of the X
certificate. In a desperate move to reap some kind of financial reward from the
film, Gross gave permission for exhibitors to cut the film to their own liking.
The resulting multitude of cuts meant that for decades what constituted the
complete or director’s cut of the film was a matter for debate and conjecture
rather than fact.
Although some have pointed
to the obvious influence of George A. Romero’s Night of the Living Dead (1968), a more instructive influence would
be the colourful gore outings of Herschel Gordon Lewis. But that is not to say
that I Drink Your Blood is totally
devoid of social commentary as most reviewers seem to suggest. For a start it
demonises the use of LSD, and although the film makes a joke of it by saying
that Satan is an acid head, the inference is quite clear. The melding of
Satanic cults and rituals, enigmatic and inspirational Charles Manson like
figures (in this case Horace, played by Bhaskar Roy Chowdury) and the use of
mind altering substances as the glue that binds it all together is both great
exploitation material and an acknowledgement of ever present fears in society. The
ritual that opens the film is pure hokum, but it does quickly introduce the
audience to a cult that has a surprising degree of cultural diversity. One
member of the party is a weird Tarot card reading Chinese woman, who wields
influence with the leader Horace, and ends her part in the proceedings with an
act of self immolation. This sequence seems like a clear nod on the director’s
part to a number of protest self-immolations in Vietnam and the United States
during the 1960’s.
The film creates an
atmosphere of youthful disaffection, moral emptiness, and social alienation
that feeds into a general Vietnam era cinematic sensibility. But it is not just
Horace and his bored acolytes that point to a decaying society. The film was
shot in a small New York village called Sharon Springs, it was a village that
had been emptied of all inhabitants and was awaiting demolition. In the film
the village and its citizens have to make way for a dam, their lives and
livelihoods swept away by the unending tide of capitalism. It is interesting to
note that the rabies that soon spreads like wildfire (one of the films major
weaknesses is the laughable speed at which the virus spreads) affects only
outsiders. In this case the outsiders are a hedonistic bunch of self absorbed
hippy cum Satanists and the blue collar workers at the dam. These two cults are
ideological embodiments of major threats to the fabric of American society. In
almost all cases they are presented as mirror images of one another. Both the
Satanists and the workers commit rape, they both resort to violence eagerly and
willingly, they both treat the remaining citizens of the town with contempt and
disrespect. In a further blackly ironic touch the rabies is initially spread
through the consumption of meat pies, thus making Durston’s critique of a
consumer driven capitalist society explicit. For Durston both the hippy LSD
cult and the blue collar cult are equally threatening, and eventually they are
united by a contagion that enables them to fully release the violence that has,
and continually, threatens to spill out.
In my view I Drink Your Blood is entirely
political, and in this sphere it works just as well as Night of the Living Dead; in other areas though Durston’s movie
suffers from its crudity and amateurishness. But despite the ultra low budget,
and some less than convincing performances (an honourable exception is Richard
Bowler as the aged veterinarian Doc Banner) Durston creates some extremely
memorable and effective moments. A sequence in which the hippy cult explore a
rotten and run down hotel (the hotel itself a metaphor for their moral decay)
and take part in a competition to hunt rats is queasy and disquieting. A series
of impalements, the cutting off of an arm with an electric knife, and sundry
decapitations are mounted with an impressive measure of success. The sight of
numerous extras sprinting as they spew out toothpaste from their mouths, their
expressions when faced with their fear of water, and the sight of one man
clutching a head as a trophy, does develop an undertone which makes one
question whether Durston was having a bit of fun with the generic aspects of
the narrative. As a horror film I Drink
Your Blood works reasonably well, but as a socio-political tract on the
perils of capitalism, social disaffection, and Vietnam era alienation, I Drink Your Blood works very well
indeed.
© Shaun Anderson 2013
I need to check both of these out, but the political context is alluring to me, I love seeing through the film how people where feeling at that moment in time. This looks like a double feature worth buying.
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis, Shaun. Haven't even heard of this one (or I EAT YOUR SKIN), but then you continually introduce me to a lot of firsts. Appreciate the historical context concerning Gross, because like you, I'm just as interested in the players (both minor and major) of film history, as I am with the films themselves. The way you tie your reviews into the greater context of social as well as film history is much appreciated. Keep up the good work, amigo.
ReplyDeleteI have a vivid memory of hearing radio ads for these on a double bill back in the day - I would have been nine or ten - and they seemed beyond frightening to a boy that age. I never did see the films but perhaps will seek them out now. Always enjoy your writing,Shaun.
ReplyDelete@ Franco - I EAT YOUR SKIN isn't really worth the effort, and I DRINK YOUR BLOOD only just about makes itself worth watching. I have a pretty low tolerance for these cheap, nasty, and crude, Grindhouse flicks. I came to this one mostly due to its status as a cult horror movie. Thanks for the comment Franco
ReplyDelete@ Greg - Yes, I think the films distribution is probably the most interesting aspect of the whole thing. The film itself is considerably less interesting than the various external forces that worked upon it over the years. When it comes to social context, or socio-political subtext, it's entirely up to the viewer whether they want to find it. I believe all films can be read politically. I came across so many reviews saying that I DRINK YOUR BLOOD was basically a pale imitation of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, but devoid of social commentary. I challenged myself to find the social comment in it, and I concluded it is easily as political as Romero's film. Cheers for the comment good sir!
@ Dale - I think the radio ads are on Youtube! A few years back I created a playlist of radio ads, and I'm sure it was a part of it. Unfortunately I deleted this playlist when I was having a Youtube clear out. Many thanks for the kind words. :-)