Tombs of the Blind Dead

They sit, they speak, they eat, but their best trick is playing dead!

From what I have gathered, Amando de Ossorio was a filmmaker with the talent of Lucio Fulci and the intentions of George Romero. Here was a man who desperately tried to make important social statements with his films. Unfortunately, his movies were often so ineptly filmed that the themes simply did not shine through. As a director, I’d give Ossorio around two-and-a-half stars for his sincere attempt in Tombs of the Blind Dead. Unfortunately, I am forced to give the film itself a significantly lower rating.

I stumbled upon the late Ossorio after reading a few horror film-related articles and became intrigued with watching his work. In Tombs, Ossorio evidently attempted make a statement about the moral decline in Europe. Films by Euro-trash directors such as Jesse Franco glorified the lifestyles of the times, which included desensitizing towards violence and an extreme emphasis on free-love styled sexuality. Franco himself adapted the works of Marquis de Sade to film, and he wasn’t ashamed to load his movies with graphic displays of violence, sadomasochism, lesbianism, and exploitation. These films became all the rave in Europe, and with Tombs of the Blind Dead, a disgusted Ossorio tried to make a film that attacked Franco and his peers (not to mention Franco the dictator, who banned most pieces of art that he considered obsene; it's therefore hard also not to read this film as a direct challenge to the Spanish government of the day). It is my understanding that Ossorio’s approach was to infuse visuals based on ancient, European paintings about the final judgment with a plot that mocked the images and themes that Franco reveled in. Thus, Ossorio’s point was that current artists needed to purify themselves by refocusing on the purity of their ancient, more pure artwork. By creating terrible monsters that preyed upon modern Europeans out of his interpretations of ancient artwork, Ossorio also attempted to argue that the terrible sins of Europe’s forefathers (demon-worshippers, sadists, corrupted priests, etc.) would eventually overtake society as long as Franco and others like him continued to grow in popularity.

Based on what I have read and heard about the man, I remain convinced that Ossorio’s intentions with Tombs of the Blind Dead are very noble. I appreciate his passion for making such attacks on the immorality of his times, but his film remains curiously lacking in any clear, poignant statements about his society, and frankly, I have a hard time telling much difference between Tombs and Franco's work. Granted, the way that he handles certain sexual/love elements in his film are very restrained and tasteful (at least at first, but I’ll get back to that), and the general music and tone within these scenes are comical and suggest that he is attempting to play against Franco's films. However, this is as far as the social commentary seems to go in Tombs, and if Ossorio was truly attempting to mock his peers, it would have helped if he had included a story more intelligent and characters more interesting than the garbage that is featured in typical Euro-trash. In addition, the overall sadistic tone of the film and a some scenes that feature unwatchable violence towards women also force me to cast doubt on Ossorio's intention, or at least his storytelling skills.

Overall, Tombs of the Blind Dead remains virtually undistinguished in style from the films of Franco, and even Lucio Fulci, who would begin making his mark a few years later. The film concerns a group of resurrected, Templar Knights who rise from their graves every night to suck the blood of helpless victims in a local town, who consist mainly of the immoral, free-lovers that are so prevalent in Franco’s films. The interactions between these human characters, as they discover the truth behind the demonic monks, create the main bulk of the film. As is the case of the characters in Fulci’s later films, the characters in Tombs move about on screen with no conviction or distinguishable personalities. They seem to accept the reality of supernatural forces at work without any resistance from their common sense, as if they realize that they are in a horror movie. Other characters turn up who might as well be wearing signs that read, “Zombie Food,” because as soon as we meet them, we know that they exist for no other purpose in the movie but this. Still other characters appear, are developed, and then disappear entirely.

The plot is equally a mess. Why does the first victim stay at the Temple’s run-down monastery in the first place? Why did she turn into a vampire after they attacked her, only to be disposed of by a minor character with no other purpose in the movie? For that matter, if the Templar truly rise from their graves and seek out victims every night, where are their other vampirized victims? I'm sure that there are answers to at least some of these questions, but I simply wasn't engaged enough with what was happening to catch them. Tombs of the Blind Dead features storytelling as lazy and as incompetent as any other Euro-trash film, and if Ossorio was truly trying to parody and challenge his society, why didn’t he attempt raise the bar of artistic standard?

I am also forced to put Ossorio’s directing skills into question. Certainly, the Knights themselves, who ride horses, carry claymores, chant some creepy Latin tunes, and cloak their rotting features under dark hoods, create some visually striking moments that display talent far beyond anything Franco ever conceived. There is a scene in which the Templar Knights chase a victim via horseback which is a feast for the eyes. Still, most of the direction is so heavy-handed and lacking in skill that sans a few effective moments with the Templar, I can’t think of any scene in the film that distinguishes Ossorio from the filmmakers who he was trying to mock. He lingers on characters and their banal reactions too long, and he does not strive for originality (has there been a woman running from a monster who has not gotten her shoe stuck in something?). Most of the direction is slow, generates little suspense, and is ultimately more depressing than terrifying. A good example of his direction misstep is the final scene, in which (SPOILER WARNING) the Knights infiltrate a train, slaughter its passengers, and ride into the next town in order to claim it as their own. This could have been a perfect opportunity for Ossorio to emphasis his conviction that if society doesn’t straighten up, the end result will be violence and oppression. Ossorio is unable to generate any tension or create any images that convey this message, and as a result, the scene’s emphasis seems to be on revenge, violence, and the agony of the Knight’s victims—Euro-trashy elements that he claimed to be against.

This brings me to Ossorio’s worst misstep, which is the inclusion of eroticism and sadism within Tombs. It was my (perhaps mistaken) understanding that Ossorio was attempting to make a film not erotic, but about eroticism. In the film’s first few scenes, he does manage to convey that he is trying to mock Franco-era eroticism, as mentioned in the restrained love scenes above. However, he features a scene in which the Templar Knights torture a helpless victim that drags on a bit too long and goes a bit too far, to the point that it is distasteful. Even worse is the inclusion of a graphic rape sequence, with is completely inappropriate, offensive, and no better than any of Franco’s displays of violence against women. This scene in particular baffles me, as it clearly goes against Ossorio’s vision and corrupts his intent, especially considering the highly-restrained scenes that he shows us before. I suspect studio intervention, but I can only speculate. As a result of this rape sequence, any social or moral statement that Ossorio is attempting to make is, frankly, flushed down the toilet. The film no longer speaks against Franco-filmmaking; it sinks to its level of pointless filth.

From an aesthetic standpoint, I suppose it is nice to have zombies that do not simply imitate Romero’s vision of the walking dead. The Templar Knights are certainly Ossorio’s own, original creation, and they are chilling villains. Unfortunately, they are no more than that. While Romero never left room to doubt the statements that he was making in his Dead films, if I had not read interviews and articles concerning Ossorio in which he admits to his vision with Tombs, I couldn’t tell his film from any other Euro-trash of the same era. Indeed, his film contains some striking visuals that truly bring to mind images of ancient, European art. Indeed, some of the sexuality is restrained. But besides these two distinguishing marks, every other aspect of the film only reflects Jesse Franco’s obsession with violence, sadism, and eroticism;. it in no way parodies him. As a result, Ossorio seems to be laughing with Franco, not at him.

Note: It has come to my attention that the original prints of Tombs of the Blind Dead did not contain the graphic rape sequence, so my studio-intervention theory seems likely. If anyone has any more information, please email.

Additional note: Back, after doing a bit more research. Evidently, the sequences with nudity were filmed for (and only included in) the American release, in order to attract a Western audience. Ah-Ha! Rather pathetic on the studio's part if you ask me, but even worse is that they were probably right. In any case, this fact makes me more sympathetic towards Ossorio's cause and forces me to reconsider his position. As a result....

Click here to read my review of the European version of Tombs of the Blind Dead.

AKA: The Blind Dead, The Crypt of the Blind Dead, Knights of Terror, Night of the Blind Dead.

Cast:
Lone Fleming: Beth Turner
Cesar Burner: Roger Whelan

A Plata Films S.A. Production. Written and directed by Amando de Ossorio. No M.P.A.A. rating, but contains graphic violence and sexual situations. Running time: 90 minutes. Year of United States release date: 1973 (released in Europe in 1971). Spanish with English subtitles.