Welcome to Christopher Lee: A Sinister Centenary! Over the course of May, I will be counting down My Top 31 Favorite Performances by my favorite actor, the late, great Sir Christopher Lee, in honor of his 100th Birthday. Although this fine actor left us a few years ago, his legacy endures, and this countdown is a tribute to said legacy!
Today’s Subject, My 6th Favorite Christopher Lee Performance: Francisco Scaramanga, from The Man With the Golden Gun.
Christopher Lee and James Bond have more ties than you might think: as it turns out, Lee was actually Ian Fleming’s cousin, and at one point, Fleming had actually suggested Lee (who, at that time, was just starting to make a proper name for himself in movies) to play the titular super spy. Lee would have been perfect casting, seeing as how he actually worked in the secret service for England for years, but alas, this never came to pass. Eon Productions made this up to audiences, however, when they decided to cast Lee to play arguably one of the greatest Bond Villains of all time: Francisco Scaramanga, the titular assassin from “The Man With the Golden Gun.”
While “The Man With the Golden Gun” is admittedly one of the more flawed James Bond movies (its tone is all over the place, two major characters are pretty annoying, and the plot is somewhat convoluted, even by Bond film standards), it is, nevertheless, an example of a case where the movie is better than the book. The book, for some strange reason, plays out more like a Spaghetti Western than a James Bond story, and the titular villain of Scaramanga is little more than a black-hatted thug with a fancy weapon. It was the last novel written by Ian Fleming for the series, and you can tell he was sort of strapped for ideas at that point. The movie, for all its own faults, wisely goes in a totally different direction from the novel…and, in deliberately not following the book much at all, it also ends up greatly improving on the character of Scaramanga.
Lee’s gilded dastard was envisioned as “the dark side of Bond;” he is one of a few villains throughout the franchise (Raoul Silva, Janus, and Red Grant are other examples) who are meant to be a dark parallel to Bond himself. Like Bond, Scaramanga is a notorious assassin who has somehow managed to remain secretive while also having a noteworthy reputation. He is a brilliant pistol shot, and enjoys the finer things in life, always wearing excellent suits and enjoying the best wines and foods he can find. However, where they differ are their motivations: Bond has his rough edges, his foibles and flaws, but he ultimately works for a heroic cause, and has a basic moral fiber somewhere under the surface. Scaramanga does not: he lives with practically no purpose but to kill and destroy, and he absolutely LOVES his work. Through death, he has made financial killings of his own; through death, he can live the life he’s always wanted. Shooting people is ultimately the only thing that brings him pleasure in life. (And I mean “pleasure” in more than one sense of the word.) Under his sophisticated and at times rather charming demeanor, he is a literal killing machine, and nothing more.
This was yet another role that gave Lee a chance to break the mold of the horror actor he was stuck in so perpetually at the time. True, Scaramanga is still the villain, but he’s a rather different creature from characters like Dracula or Fu Manchu. Lee brings an enthusiasm and energy to the part that gives Scaramanga an almost boyish quality; his childlike excitement when Bond comes to “visit” him on his island hideaway (because of course he has one of those) is especially wonderful. He doesn’t just RESPECT Bond, he outright seems to IDOLIZE the guy; you almost get the feeling that Scaramanga’s similarities to Bond are self-crafted, that he’s been building up this moment for himself for years, and the chance to finally see his hero, have dinner with him, and show him around his pad is just as delightful to him as the chance to fight said hero in combat and come out the victor. Of course, the relationship is almost tragically one-sided, as Bond is quite disgusted by Scaramanga, which no doubt only heightens his desire to see Bond fall courtesy of one of his own gold bullets. The best comparison I can think of in a more modern film is the relationship between Syndrome and Mr. Incredible from “The Incredibles”: the villain is just as much the hero’s fanboy as their self-proclaimed nemesis.
Bottom line: while “The Man With the Golden Gun” has its problems, the titular villain is not among them. He’s one of my top three favorite Bond Villains, without question, and I actually feel pretty bad for not including him in the Top 5 on this countdown. Hopefully those who rank above him will not disappoint. ;)
The top five starts tomorrow. Not only that, but tomorrow marks the official birthday of our honored actor! Who will be chosen to mark that special occasion? Join me next time to find out.
Welcome to Christopher Lee: A Sinister Centenary! Over the course of May, I will be counting down My Top 31 Favorite Performances by my favorite actor, the late, great Sir Christopher Lee, in honor of his 100th Birthday. Although this fine actor left us a few years ago, his legacy endures, and this countdown is a tribute to said legacy!
It’s the final week of the countdown, guys and gals! Today’s Subject, My 7th Favorite Christopher Lee Performance: Captain Rochefort, from Richard Lester’s Three Musketeers Trilogy.
There have been numerous adaptations of Alexandre Dumas’ classic swashbuckling novel “The Three Musketeers,” some more well-known or popular than others. For many cinemagoers, however, if there is a definitive version of the story in film form, it is most likely the trilogy of films directed by Richard Lester. Lester’s movies were actually produced by the same company behind the Christopher Reeve Superman films; in fact, Lester’s first two movies were actually an inspiration for some behind-the-scenes techniques in the first two Superman movies, and Lester was the man who directed Superman II AND Superman III.
Let’s get this straight…the team behind the classic Superman movies…working on a famous action-adventure classic…with CHRISTOPHER LEE as one of the main villains?! Honestly, is it any wonder these movies are considered the definitive takes on the Musketeer story?
The first two films (“The Three Musketeers” and “The Four Musketeers”) are basically a straightforward adaptation of the novel, each movie taking approximately one half of the original story – think along the lines of two-part features such as “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” or “Batman: The Dark Knight Returns.” The third film, “Return of the Musketeers,” is an original piece, evidently produced by popular demand. Throughout these three pictures, there are, fittingly three key villains who bedevil our heroes: the main antagonist of the first two movies is Cardinal Richelieu, played by Charlton Heston. Milady De Winter, a former lover of Athos and one of the first femme fatales of fiction, is the secondary antagonist of the first two films, and takes the lead as the main villain in “Return.” Throughout all these movies, Christopher Lee appears as a supporting rogue: he is the evil nobleman and soldier Rochefort, a scoundrel who follows the orders of both of the other baddies.
Despite being subservient to Richelieu and De Winter, Rochefort is by no means a minor character, nor a mere pawn. In fact, he has a rather substantial role, as he becomes the true nemesis of the main protagonist of the series, D’Artagnan. Throughout the series, they battle with each other, steel and wit matching constantly, and their story arc ends up being one of the most powerful and intense parts of the whole trilogy. In point of fact, the portrayal of Rochefort created by Lee and Lester has been highly influential: in the books, Rochefort is a somewhat more minor character, and also more sympathetic, as he ends up becoming a sort of friendly rival of D’Artagnan, rather than a true nemesis. Ever since these movies, however, Rochefort has become a much more prominent, as well as much more sinister, character: portrayals by actors such as Michael Wincott, Mads Mikkelsen, and Marc Warren often owe more to Lee’s version than the actual Dumas novel.
The Lester Trilogy is noteworthy for its sense of tone, and how it changes, especially between the first two movies. The first movie is largely a comedic adventure film, but with a slight edge; in the second film, however, the stakes are raised significantly, and while there are still funny moments, we learn more about the characters and see them go through tougher trials, leading to a darker tone. Think of it as being along the lines of “A New Hope” versus “Empire Strikes Back”: one is more cut-and-dry in its approach, more superficial, and with a slightly lighter tone, while the other really gets into the proverbial nitty-gritty of these characters and puts them through Hell and back by the time its over. (If only “Return” could in any way be likened to Star Wars’ own third pillar, but that’s another story.) Lee does a brilliant job balancing these elements as the nasty Rochefort: he is a menacing opponent for D’Artagnan and the rest, but there’s a certain grandiosity to him at times that gives him some humorous moments, especially in the first movie. He actually reminds me a little bit of Captain Hook; sort of part-fop, part-true threat. Actually, come to think of it, Christopher Lee would have made an amazing Captain Hook…as far as I’m aware, though, that never happened…oh, the lost opportunities of history…
Welcome to the last entry of Christopher Lee: A Sinister Centenary! Over the course of May, I have been counting down My Top 31 Favorite Performances by my favorite actor, the late, great Sir Christopher Lee, in honor of his 100th Birthday. Although this fine actor left us a few years ago, his legacy endures, and this countdown is a tribute to said legacy!
We’ve come to the finale of this special event. I’ve discussed Christopher Lee’s two favorite pictures, “Jinnah” and “The Wicker Man,” and I’ve discussed some of his most well-known characters, such as Saruman and Count Dooku. But today, we discuss my personal favorite Christopher Lee Performance…or rather, my favorite Christopher Lee Character: Count Dracula.
Who else could it be?
The Creature – Frankenstein’s Monster – was the role that officially put Christopher Lee on the map. It got the attention of Hammer studios, and made audiences curious…but if that had been Lee’s one standout role, I doubt he’d be as revered as he is today. A bit like how it took “Empire Strikes Back” to TRULY cement Darth Vader’s place in the annals of villainy, I think it is fair to say that it took “Horror of Dracula” to cement Christopher Lee as an actor. However, Lee really only got the part because of Frankenstein, and on closer inspection, this is clear: for most of the film, Dracula is not onscreen, and after the opening sequence with Jonathan Harker, he never speaks again for the remainder of the movie. Ironically, however, these same qualities were part of what made the character so fascinating: the mystery and the power Lee carried, doing so much with so little, made his Dracula instantly memorable, and from that moment on, his reputation was set in stone.
This was as much a blessing as a curse. Lee would, in the end, play Dracula a total of TEN TIMES in theatrical films: seven times for Hammer, once in the Jess Franco picture “Count Dracula,” once in a (bad) comedy/parody film called “Dracula and Son,” and once in a cameo appearance in the film “One More Time,” directed by Jerry Lewis and starring Sammy Davis Jr. (Not the place you’d usually expect Dracula to show up, but whatever.) On top of that, he would end up playing the real-life inspiration for the Count, Vlad Dracula, in a documentary entitled “In Search of Dracula.” And even THAT is not the end, as Lee would narrate an (abridged) audiobook of the Bram Stoker novel in 2009. Put it all together, and you can make a case for Lee tackling the Count a whole dozen times. Even if you only count the initial ten, that’s more than any actor has EVER played Dracula, at least in movies: that’s more than Bela Lugosi, Adam Sandler, and John Carradine COMBINED.
If you will pardon the expression…HOT. DAMN.
Carving out a name for himself as the King of the Vampires was something that Lee would always have something of a love/hate relationship with. On the one hand, Dracula was the role that brought him fame and recognition beyond any other, and to this day he is one of the most iconic and lauded interpreters of the character, especially through the Hammer Horror franchise. On the other hand…if we’re being completely honest, out of all ten of his film appearances as the Count, there are really only two – JUST TWO – that I would solidly and honestly consider to be good movies, with few major flaws to speak of. The rest all range from “okay” to “OH GOD WHAT IS THIS TRAVESTY MAKE IT STOP.” Lee, himself, was well-aware of the flaws in the material for most of his pictures, and as a fan of the Bram Stoker novel, he hated how the writers – especially with the Hammer features – never seemed to use the character to what he felt was their full potential.
Perhaps more important and tragic than the lackluster material, however, was what it did to Lee’s career, and it was this, above all else, that proved to be Lee’s ultimate bitter point with the role and the movies he was in for it: no matter what else he did, for decades upon decades, Lee – like the aforementioned Lugosi – was seen as Dracula. This lasted well into the modern day: while younger viewers of today will probably recognize him better for Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, or his Tim Burton film appearances, the directors of those same movies never failed to remind Lee with jokes about his role as the Count…something which seemed to mildly frustrate the great man, even then. In fact, any time a director DIDN’T make a joke about Dracula, or only did it once, Lee would point this out as being something that endeared them to him. All the way to the end, the vampire lord dogged this man, and Lee’s commentary on his tenure was, for the most part, quite sour.
Having related all this, the ultimate question one must ask about Christopher Lee and Count Dracula is…why? Why, when the actor so clearly had resentment against so many of the films, and repeatedly stressed his desire to put that character aside and move on, did he keep coming back to it, again and again and again? With Hammer, Lee has gone on record saying he was basically blackmailed into doing most of those movies…but this doesn’t explain his appearances in the non-Hammer properties. And for all the bitterness he had, when Lee was actually asked about the CHARACTER, and his approach to the role as an actor, he always spoke of it fondly, with enthusiasm and analytical intensity.
I think the ultimate answer is that, for all the ups and downs Dracula provided Lee, it was, nevertheless, a role he legitimately cared about. He may not have liked the movies, but he liked the Count, and he was protective of the part. Even in the worst of his Dracula outings, he is always A+ in his delivery of whatever material he’s given. He took steps to try and inject something special into the character, when even the writers often clearly hadn’t the foggiest idea of what they were doing. And in every story you hear about the movies, in every clip from behind-the-scenes you see, he’s having fun. Whatever curse Dracula brought to Christopher Lee…perhaps the pains, in the end, were worth it. Lee may or may not have been proud to see Dracula take the top spot on this list…but it’s the spot his Dracula deserves.
Thank you all for joining me on this adventure through the wild and wonderful career of Sir Christopher Lee. What countdown shall I do next? Only time will tell. ;)
Once again, Happy Birthday, Sir Christopher. I hope that yourself, Peter Cushing, and Vincent Price are having fun up there in that big mystery movie in the sky.
Welcome to Christopher Lee: A Sinister Centenary! Over the course of May, I have been counting down My Top 31 Favorite Performances by my favorite actor, the late, great Sir Christopher Lee, in honor of his 100th Birthday. Although this fine actor left us a few years ago, his legacy endures, and this countdown is a tribute to said legacy!
It’s time for the penultimate entry of this special countdown. Today’s Subject, My 2nd Favorite Christopher Lee Performance: Lord Summerisle, from The Wicker Man.
SCREW THE NICOLAS CAGE REMAKE!!! Ahem…sorry, I…seem to be programmed to say that anytime I mention The Wicker Man-SCREW THE NICOLAS CAGE REMAKE!!! Ahem-hem…sorry again. From this point on, I’ll just call “Wicker Man” for safety’s sake.
It helps if I don’t say “the.” :P
ANYWAY…alongside “Jinnah,” Lee considered “Wicker Man” to be his single favorite and best film, and it’s hard to disagree there. This very strange, surreal, and EXTREMELY dark picture is a genre-blending, one-of-a-kind thriller. It’s part horror film, part twist-turning murder mystery, part musical…and all around HIGHLY disturbing, even nowadays. The story follows a police officer, Neil Howie, who attempts to solve the mystery of a small girl’s strange disappearance on the island colony of Summerisle. A faithful Christian, Howie is appalled to discover the island’s residents practice rituals resembling a form of Celtic Paganism. As the story goes on, he discovers a massive conspiracy…a conspiracy that ends in his EXTREMELY horrifying downfall.
A central figure in the unfolding madness is Christopher Lee as the leader of the colony, and a descendant of the island’s founders, Lord Summerisle. Summerisle is a mysterious, strange figure, one who – even all the way up to the end – we’re never able to fully unravel. He is a walking enigma; in some ways a civilized gentleman, reasonable and rational, and really quite friendly. But the fervor with which he commits his crimes and practices the dark rituals of the story creates an air of deep unease. It’s also not entirely clear how truthfully Summerisle BELIEVES in the pagan trials, or even how true they are to any kind of spiritual following: is he a mad cultist, a charlatan leading a band of disillusioned followers, or something else entirely? Perhaps the most disturbing question is if Summerisle is actually RIGHT in what he does, since it’s left unclear if all his wicked workings even have the desired effect in the end or not. Only the audience can truly decide for themselves what is true and what is false.
This role, in essence, gives one EVERYTHING they could want out of a great Christopher Lee performance, giving the actor a chance to show nearly the full breadth of his range as a performer all in one shot: he gets to sing, and he gets to dance. He has scenes of manic, wild power, and scenes of subtlety and softness. He has scenes where he is terrifying and intimidating, and scenes where you almost forget to be scared at all. The ambiguities of the character only help to add to the power of the part. It’s easy to see why this was one of Lee’s personal favorite roles, and I actually very, VERY nearly gave Lord Summerisle the number one slot…but the more I thought about it and inspected the situation, the more I felt that wasn’t quite right. Lord Summerisle is phenomenal, but there’s one Lee performance I like more…but I mustn’t say more, or I shall spoil what’s coming next.
On that note…tomorrow, we reach the end of the countdown. Who will be my number one favorite? You’ll have to stick around to find out! ;)
Welcome to Christopher Lee: A Sinister Centenary! Over the course of May, I will be counting down My Top 31 Favorite Performances by my favorite actor, the late, great Sir Christopher Lee, in honor of his 100th Birthday. Although this fine actor left us a few years ago, his legacy endures, and this countdown is a tribute to said legacy!
We’re in the Top Three! Today’s Subject, My 3rd Favorite Christopher Lee Performance: Saruman the White, from The Lord of the Rings Trilogy.
Alongside his role as Count Dooku in Star Wars, Lee’s appearance in “The Lord of the Rings” was one of the roles that put him back on the map, after almost 15 years of relative obscurity. Throughout the late 80s and the 1990s, while Lee was still a jobbing actor, working steadily, his popularity and prominence had greatly diminished. When Peter Jackson cast him to play the evil wizard, Saruman – one of the main antagonists of the classic Tolkien fantasy novels – people were reminded of the power of this performer. This role, above all others, served as a reminder that Lee could still captivate audiences, and turn in a scene-stealing performance.
Saruman was, once again, one of Lee’s favorite roles, and very close to his heart: he was actually a major fan of the Tolkien classics, and made a point of reading them annually. He even brought annotated copies of the books with him onset, at least in the original trilogy. It can easily be argued that, in the first two out of three films, Saruman was honestly the primary antagonist: I’ve always felt that the so-called character of Sauron is less a proper “character” and more of a force of nature. He’s an evil PRESENCE who’s malignant influence causes much of the mayhem in the story, but he’s never really a true FIGURE in the stories, or even in the films. Saruman and Gollum are the two most prominent physical antagonists in the books, and the ones who drive much of the conflict for the story. The same goes for the movies, which, in fact, expanded on Saruman’s role, giving Lee plenty of meat to work with.
The reasons why Lee is so brilliant as Saruman are easy to explain: with his tall and willowy stature, and his grand and intimidating vocal presence, he COMMANDED attention each time he appeared onscreen. Even in scenes where he says little, or moves little, he somehow manages to dominate the sequence. Indeed, most fans agree that, of all the changes made between the theatrical and director’s cuts for “Return of the King,” if there was one change that SHOULDN’T have been made, it was removing Saruman’s death scene. While perhaps it could have been shortened for time, seeing Saruman get his comeuppance on the big screen would have been a treat, whereas NOT seeing it proves to be one of the few faults the third pillar has.
This would quite literally be a role that would stick with Lee to his dying day: he reprised the character for the prequel Hobbit Trilogy. This wasn’t easy for Lee to manage, as he was very, VERY late in his life by that point, and in fact, much of his work in the third film had to be done by a stuntman. In both movies, he actually had to film his scenes separate from the rest of the cast, overseas, in front of a greenscreen: the travel would have been too much for him, by that point. Even with this in mind, seeing him as Saruman before his corruption is truly a marvel: all those years later, he still had the vocal power and charismatic presence to own the scenes he was in, and it gives us a new perspective on the White Wizard the original trilogy did not offer. Lee said that his favorite part of playing Saruman in the prequel trilogy was the fact that, in essence, he could say goodbye to the role by leaving it with him as a hero, not as a villain. What Lee perhaps did not realize (or perhaps he did, it’s difficult to say) was that this would prove to be one of his final performances. It was the last movie he did that was released during his lifetime: a year after “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies” came out, Lee was dead.
After so many years playing villains and bogeymen…Christopher Lee’s last character – one of the most iconic of those same roles – went out like a hero. The poetry of Saruman in this actor’s life is inescapable.
Tomorrow, our penultimate entry in the countdown: I shall unveil my second favorite pick!
Welcome to Christopher Lee: A Sinister Centenary! Over the course of May, I will be counting down My Top 31 Favorite Performances by my favorite actor, the late, great Sir Christopher Lee, in honor of his 100th Birthday. Although this fine actor left us a few years ago, his legacy endures, and this countdown is a tribute to said legacy!
Yesterday was our fine actor’s official centenary date, but the countdown isn’t over quite yet! Today’s Subject, My 4th Favorite Christopher Lee Performance: Muhammad Ali Jinnah, from…well…Jinnah.
I doubt very many of you have even heard of, let alone seen, this movie. Trust me, it’s something special. Sir Christopher Lee claimed that this was actually one of his personal favorite films and roles he ever had, and considered it one of the most important movies he was ever part of. For a long time, I actually used to say this was my second favorite of his performances, because his self-analysis there is not unfounded: you can definitely make an argument for “Jinnah” as Lee’s best performance and film.
Here’s the thing, though: as I’ve said time and time again in the past, there is a difference between “favorite” and “best.” Favoritism is more a matter of personal taste, judged by more emotional than technical factors. “Best” is really a ranking of technical elements. In this case, “Jinnah” is a brilliant movie, but – as of the moment I’m writing this – I’ve only watched it a grand total of three times. (One of those three in preparation for this list.) And I’m not particularly in the mood to watch it a fourth time in the near future. This isn’t because the film is BAD, by ANY means, it’s just that I’d rather watch other movies more. It’s just one of those cases of something being brilliant, but not something you’ll repeatedly go back to or talk about a lot.
Of course, the two words are not mutually exclusive, and saying that this is perhaps Lee’s Best Performance is, quite obviously, not by any means a bad thing to say. This 1998 biopic about the founder of Pakistan takes an interesting perspective: the story focuses on Jinnah, following his death, taking a trip through his own past, following a mysterious Guide. The film looks back on not only his many accomplishments, but also his foibles, presenting a surprisingly honest depiction of the nation-builder. Lee was cast in the role not for the sake of star power or stunt casting, but because of his remarkable resemblance to the real Jinnah; his acting acumen was, obviously, integral as well, and he considered the part a massive responsibility. If anything, his history in horror pictures ended up being more of a problem than anything else: there were people literally sending death threats to him and the creators of the movie, appalled at the idea of “a vampire playing Jinnah.”
Once the film was released, however, all negativity was silenced. Critics considered this the most subtle, nuanced, poignant performance of Lee’s entire career. Most actors who disappear completely into a character are helped by makeup and heavy costuming, COMBINED with their brilliant work. Lee vanishes into Jinnah without any of that; it’s one of the few roles of his where I almost forget it’s Christopher Lee playing the part, his work and the story so enamor one and capture the spirit of the person he’s portraying so beautifully. There is no melodrama here, there’s just such honesty, conviction, and believability to this performance that it dispels any notions of his past performances. When I first saw the film, I remember going into it thinking I’d be cracking jokes about white wizards and Frankenstein Monsters all the way through…and, of course, I was so spellbound and fascinated, that didn’t happen.
Unfortunately, this film is an EXTREMELY overlooked picture: it was never released in cinemas outside of Pakistan, much of its release work taking place in film festivals internationally, and while it’s been released to DVD and other video outlets, I’ve never personally SEEN any just lying around in stores, so to speak. It’s tough to track down, but if you can find it, it’s more than worth a watch. It is, without a doubt, one of Lee’s crowning achievements, if NOT his crowning achievement…I just tend to think of other parts more immediately when I think of Christopher Lee, which is why it only gets fourth place. That is literally the ONLY reason. Iconography has its place.
It’s time for the top three! Tomorrow, I shall discuss my third favorite pick!
