When Jonathan Frid refused to play Barnabas in the sequel to HOUSE OF DARK SHADOWS for fear of being typecast, Dan Curtis and his production team had to come up with another plotline without him. The result was NIGHT OF DARK SHADOWS and this time the focus was on Quentin Collins (David Selby) and his hapless bride Tracy (Kate Jackson) and the plot centered around possession instead of vampires.
This entry into the DARK SHADOWS franchise was not as successful at the box office as its predecessor and I'll give you three tries to figure out why and the first two don't count -- duh! No Barnabas! Whether he liked it or not, he had been typecast way before these movies were filmed. Plus, it's a huge gamble to spend the money on making a feature film without your top star, but Curtis banked on the show's title and popularity, thinking it was enough.
What follows here are examples from MGM's press kit for the film, issued by their publicity department for the news media. You will notice that it was also referred to CURSE OF DARK SHADOWS, the title that was used before it was released on August 3, 1971. Some interesting stuff here, including a sheet about Lyndhurst the 110-year-old New York mansion that was rented for the Collinwood setting.
 |
| These are the captions that coincide with the photos below. |
EXTRA! Here's a feature article on NIGHT OF DARK SHADOWS from FAMOUS MONSTERS OF FILMLAND #88 (January 1972). You can see that Forry put the press kit to good use.
Night of Dark Shadows was not about time travel. It was about possession.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment. Relying on memory (which isn't always a good thing!) I think I got the TV show mixed up with the movie for some reason. I've made the correction.
ReplyDeleteWhile "no Barnabas" was definitely a major factor in NIGHT OF DARK SHADOWS performing disappointingly, there were others-- predominantly the original series airing for the last time on April 2, 1971 before this hit theaters on August 4, 1971. (In fact, the movie started shooting three days before the last episode was aired.)
ReplyDeleteAnother factor was that the film was subjected to last-minute alterations by MGM, who forced Dan Curtis to cut the completed film from 129 minutes to 94 minutes-- and gave him only 24 hours to do it. As a result, the film seems unevenly paced and even incoherent at times.
And perhaps worst of all, HOUSE OF DARK SHADOWS-- which opened a little over 5 months before the series was yanked-- not only upped the horror elements (Carolyn getting turned and then staked, among other main character deaths) but eliminated the entire "Barnabas-Angelique" conflict that was a major part of the series. The result gave us a Barnabas that was less of a tragic romantic figure, and more of a slightly humanized Dracula substitute.
(And then in 1974, Dan Curtis gave us a TV-movie DRACULA adaptation scripted by Richard Matheson and starring Jack Palance, that incorporated the "Barnabas finding reincarnation of his lost love" elements of DS, resulting in a very *non-Stoker* take on the Count that was lifted and further amplified for Francis Ford Coppola's 1992 film.)
NIGHT might've made up for that shift in Barnabas in HOUSE, if Frid hadn't bailed and if they could've somehow still belatedly introduced the "Barnabas-Angelique" storyline in a sequel that pulled him back to his series persona.
And while NIGHT at least finally gives us Lara Parker (R.I.P.), Angelique is here presented in an unfamiliar form loosely based on the "parallel time" storyline, but with major alterations to eliminate Frid's involvement. So all we get are "Angelique" and "Quentin" in name only, and saddled with a confusing storyline with new characters fans of the series have no investment in.
Coming as a coda months after the end of the original series, it felt like HALLOWEEN III: SEASON OF THE WITCH or AMITYVILLE 4: THE YARD SALE LAMP.
Sorry this is such a lengthy rant, but I was a BIG fan of Angelique and the original DS, and I found HOUSE disappointing and upsetting and NIGHT a total disaster when I saw both in first run.
50+ years later, while I still have fond memories of hurrying home after school to watch DS, it's hard for me to take it as seriously as I did then, and I've never been able to revisit the series online for more than a brief look.
Since I've never seen HOUSE or NIGHT a second time, I should probably give both a rewatch-- but it's all so much like finding a pair of bell-bottomed polyester double-knit pants you wore in 1971 and realizing you could still squeeze into them, that it's unlikely to happen anytime soon.
Still, I got a kick out of this post and seeing the pressbook, so thanks for posting it! (Even though that poster tagline "HUNG AS A WITCH" still bugs the hell out of the grammarian in me.)
-- hsc
Interesting points all. When I went to see HOUSE as a young teenager all I can remember was thinking: "This is Dark Shadows"? I guess Curtis thought he could unleash the hounds, unfettered from the restrictions of the small screen. I mean the blood and violence! Frankly, I was a bit shocked. And your last comment reminded me of Alfred Hitchcock using the proper (albeit somewhat confusing) phrase "The Birds Is Coming" during his ad campaign for the titular film.
ReplyDeleteYep, I remember that ad phrasing for the Hitchcock film causing a bit of a stir-- typical of the audience-tweaking his films always did.
ReplyDeleteIt was perfectly fine as "THE BIRDS is coming!" in print-- though IIRC, it wasn't written in a way to set off the title-- but made English teachers clutch their pearls whenever it was spoken.
MAD lampooned it with the tagline "The Birds Is Coming! (And good grammar in advertising has went!)" as well as a sequence in their parody where someone responds to that screamed warning with a annoyed schoolmarm lecture ("Either *A* bird *IS* coming, or a group of birds *ARE* coming!") even as they're attacking.
-- hsc
Leave it to MAD to catch on to that and use it in their own unique way!
ReplyDelete