The last couple of weeks have entailed a series of connections. Thanks to a Christmas present, I went on a run of Vincent Price movies. That led me to take in some of Price’s work with Roger Corman. And in turn, watching some of those great old Poe pictures, I got an itch to revisit something I’d first seen only a few months ago, a loving parody of those films, Elvira’s Haunted Hills (2001). When I first watched it in October, featured on the Joe Bob Briggs Halloween special on Shudder, with Cassandra Peterson (the performer behind Elvira) as a guest, it took me quite a while to get into it. I was enjoying the interview portions of the show, hearing Peterson’s stories of her career and the hard and costly road of making the movie, but the humor of the film just wasn’t landing. But somehow, over time, I started to get it. I hadn’t seen the movies it was lampooning (generally, the Corman Poe cycle, with a pinch of Hammer Horror thrown in), but I started to catch what was being sent up and by the end, I kind of loved it.
Having finally watched a few of Corman’s flicks, I really wanted to give this another watch and see how it played with more knowledge of its inspiration. So, that’s what we’re doing today. There will be some spoilers, but I think that is less troublesome in a work of parody such as this.
Elvira’s Haunted Hills (2001)
Elvira is an interesting figure in the horror landscape. A horror host since 1981 (before that having worked with a wide range of big names, from Elvis to Fellini), her act walks a line between Borsht Belt shtick with endless cheesy one liners; a kind of camp sexuality wherein she puts on exaggerated characteristics of femininity in a manner not dissimilar to a drag queen, all the while making a constant joke of it – at once, selling and sending up the “sexiness” (there’s no situation she won’t turn into a joke about her chest); and always warmly, lovingly celebrating the Halloween of it all – the fun play with spookiness and the macabre. It’s an odd and unique balancing act, and maybe it doesn’t always work, but that’s where the camp comes in – I think it isn’t always supposed to work – the joke not landing is sometimes part of the bit (and sometimes the failed joke is the actual gag) – there is an irony at the heart of it all that shines through even when a superficial laugh falls flat (insert boob joke here).
Generally, that all applies to this film – it is cheesy. The jokes often fizzle. It goes for the lowest hanging fruit possible – both in its “parody” and in its “bawdiness”; but there is a secret kernel hidden at its center: something knowing, a genuine love of the movies it purports to make fun of, a brave, open-hearted willingness to do the absolutely stupidest things for a laugh. All of this makes it kind of infectious, and surprisingly loveable.
We follow Elvira (basically as her anachronistic “valley-girl” inspired self) travelling to Paris to star in her can-can revue, waylaid at a spooooky old castle filled with nods to (and direct rip-offs of) characters from the Corman Poe films (having only seen the three so far, I can’t track every reference, but it draws largely from House of Usher and Pit and the Pendulum). Family patriarch who can’t stand loud sounds? Check. Someone walled up in the basement? You betcha. A spot of catalepsy? Better believe it! Torture chambers, the dark burden of family history, revelation of marital betrayals, a crumbling ancient mansion, tainted by genealogical evil, waiting to sink into the ground, and prose as purple as sweet plum wine? You want it – we got it! Even the opening credits, with abstract paintings undulating behind the text, suggests the kind of thing Corman was doing in the early 60s.
It turns out that Elvira is a dead ringer for Lady Elura, the first wife, ten years dead, of the long suffering Lord Hellsubus (Richard O’Brien of Rocky Horror Picture Show), but she also seems to sometimes actually be Elura reincarnate, or somehow her descendant – it’s not quite clear, which sets in motion a series of attempted murders, explorations through hidden, cobweb infested passages, and shocking reveals. All the while, Elvira is simply trying to catch a ride to continue on to Paris to do her show (though she is happy to be momentarily delayed by hooking up with the ridiculously hunky and poorly dubbed, Fabio-esque stable boy). By the end, she is of course tied to a slab with a sharpened pendulum swinging above her, but also of course, as the rope tying her down goes over her ample bosom, it gets cut before she does and she manages to escape (there really aren’t any “haunted hills” in this film – that’ s just another boob joke too).
But this movie is not that focused on plot, so much as setting up scenarios to indulge in the silliest gags imaginable. Lord Hellsubus can’t endure loud sounds so there’s a slapstick routine of Elvira and her assistant, Zou Zou, bumping into every suit of armor, knocking over ever vase and hitting every gong. Elvira runs through a graveyard, only to see a spider in its web and scream, see a raven fly past her head and scream, see a bunny sitting sweetly in front of a tombstone and scream.
After having Zou Zou add more bubbles to her Jacuzzi (by blowing into a hose), Elvira is about to get out of the bath when she admonishes the camera operator to look away cause she doesn’t want to “blow the rating on this picture.” She even gets a big, music hall number, with singing and dancing and an applause sign on her tush.
Some of this is pretty funny, and regrettably some of it isn’t. It’s a bit strange, but I think I actually enjoyed the movie more on my first watch when I’d not yet seen the films it was referencing. Having watched them so recently, some of the referential comedy comes off as just that – trying to get a laugh for recreating exact scenes and dialogue from its referents without always coming up with its own jokes. Text frequently feels directly pulled from House of Usher or Pit and the Pendulum. It’s closer to Mel Brooks’s Dracula: Dead and Loving It than it is to his superior Young Frankenstein; the later really making its own characters and comic situations out of the source material, and the former depending much more on recreating (in a silly fashion) specific moments from Dracula films (generally Coppola’s 1992 picture). When I didn’t know the original films, I picked up on the joke that it was sending up a kind of film, a kind of melodramatic, over-the-top, old fashioned, but beloved work. Now, it feels more like it is just redoing bits (but with more slapstick, boob jokes, and sound effects that go “boing!”). It is still enjoyable and lovable in its intentional ridiculousness, but it doesn’t feel as inspired in its stupidity as I’d originally taken it to be.
Also, some elements suffer in comparison. The first time I watched it, I’d imagined that O’Brien’s Lord Hellsubus was affectionately aping a kind of performance one might have found in the originals, and I really got a kick out of just how madcap he went, his performance really growing on me over the film and staying with me afterwards. He was going on a wild ride, and I loved going there with him. However, having just watched some of the Corman movies, I can see how the big choices O’Brien is making are actually the opposite of what Price had done 50 years earlier with a parallel role. Where Price gets quiet, O’Brien gets loud; where Price stays grounded, O’Brien goes round the bend; where Price tenderly touches emotional depths, bringing forth a horrific, subtle shudder, O’Brien waves his arms about and shouts his head off.
That said, I don’t want to be unfair to this actor – what was he supposed to do? Try to recreate Price’s performance beat for beat (and almost certainly fail) – isn’t it better to go in his own direction? And what he’s doing is unquestionably appropriate for the loony tunes world his role exists in – something as gentle and whole as Price had done could have been lost amidst the sight gags and double entendres. Maybe playing it this way just serves to better homage Price’s talent (the movie is dedicated to him), highlighting the surprising and oh-so-successful choices he made by showing the path not taken.
As a whole, this movie is such an odd duck. I really do have affection for it, but I wonder who they thought they were making it for. It has a goofy sense of humor that perhaps a nine year old could best appreciate while it revolves around references to a series of movies no nine year old is likely to have seen. It’s full of allusions to horrific acts (with just a little bit of cartoony gore thrown in at the end), but it is not remotely scary. It leans hard on sex jokes but it still comes off as entirely wholesome. It approaches its source material with such inane absurdity, but it is obvious how much it adores those earlier films. It really does feel like a labor of love, which I understand it was for Peterson and her team. Apparently, she had trouble getting financing, poured loads of her own money into getting the picture finished (partly funded by mortgaging her home), and then couldn’t really get it distributed and took a huge financial loss – in the end, she mostly ended up screening it as a part of AIDS fundraisers she was involved with.
In the end, for all its faults, I still feel like championing this picture – I think it’s been little seen and while the cohort who will really appreciate it is probably quite small, I really hope those people find this movie. Their inner vaudevillian, sixties-horror-loving child will thank them for it.