#william marshall

In ho-nor of Black History Month, we are going to present one of the most important vampire pictures ever made, “Blacula.” I’m sure you’ve heard of it: the tit-le has become something of a pop culture punchline, and it would be a lie to say that it’s not a wonderfully ridiculous tit-le. When you hear “Blacula,” you eXXXpect ether a bargain-basement schlock-shocker (watch “Blackenstein” for that) or a provocative parody designed to offend. The second most shocking thing about “Blacula” is that it is neither one of those things. The most shocking? Well, it’s actually a damn good ho-rror film!

“Blacula” tells the tragic tale of Mamuwalde, an African Prince who is bitten by Count Dracula in 1780. The unfortunate Manuwalde is turned into a vampire and locked in a coffin. After many decades of dreamless slumber, Manuwalde is inadvertently released from his coffin in Los Angeles, 1972. Manuwalde soon discovers Tina, the woman he believes to be the reincarnation of his lost wife, Luva. Bloodthirsty and hot-blooded, Manuwalde seeks the love of his afterlife.

While “Blacula” was being developed, William Marshall worked with the producers to give the eponymous neck-biter the dignity a great vampire deserves. Blacula’s real name was changed from “Andrew Brown” to “Mamuwalde,” and his character received the previously recounted backstory. It’s important to note Marshall’s involvement in the creative process because it proves just ho-w invested he was in the part.

 Marshall was a Shakespearean actor, and he shaped Blacula into a Shakespearean figure. With his stentorian delivery and eXXXalted bearing, Marshall was simply majestic in a part that could’ve been played for cheap laughs. His Mamuwalde was truly a monarch of the undead; a stately demon with the manners of an angel. In my book, William Marshall is up there with Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee. “Blacula” is a silly name (the name given to him by Dracula himself), but Blacula is not a silly monster.

The film itself is an engaging chiller that successfully transfers Hammer histrionics to the groovy ‘70s. Heck, Hammer couldn’t even accomplish that: just give “Dracula A.D. 1972” a watch! Sure, some effects may betray a lack of funds, but the direction and script are worthy of their vampire. We could go on… but we think you ought to just see for yourself! Without any further a-BOO, we proudly present… “Blacula!”

Check it out, Ho-rror Ho-mies!