But while the women of Hammer often figured
prominently into the appeal of its horror films, that didn’t mean that the studio wanted to develop them long-term. Even the best-known actresses associated with Hammer – Caroline Munro (Captain Kronos Vam- pire Hunter), Raquel Welch (One Million Years B.C.), Ursula Andress (She), Veronica Carlson (Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed) and Pitt (The Vampire Lovers) – rarely did more than a few movies with the studio, as Hammer was always on the lookout for younger and cheaper talent.
“Hammer preferred to nurture new talent rather than pay for existing stars,” says
Hearn, “[because] stars were extremely expensive. The women in the films were often discovered by Hammer and then just as quickly discarded.” For her part, Pitt, whom Hearn describes in his book as “the most emblematic of all
the leading ladies associated with Hammer,” was hoping for a more prestigious gig after starring opposite Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood in 1968’s Where Eagles Dare than the lesbian vampire she portrayed in The Vampire Lovers. “To be truthful, I felt that doing a horror film after being in the big international block-
buster Where Eagles Darewas a bit of a setback. I was looking for another Eagles but with a better credit. I enjoyed working at Hammer and, of course, hoped to do more with them if they wanted me. Unfortunately, I got embroiled in the politics of filmland.” Pitt’s involvement with Hammer coincided with a turning point in how the studio ap-
proached depictions of sexuality onscreen. Censorship restrictions in Britain in the ’50s and ’60s, Hearn says, meant that Hammer “had to rely on suggestion and eroti- cism and suspense because censors would not allow them to be as explicit as they wanted to.” Hence the heaving bosoms and low-cut dresses of early Hammer horror starlets such as Hazel Court and Barbara Shelley. But that relatively modest approach went out the window in 1970 with changes to
Britain’s X certificate, which allowed more graphic depictions of sex and violence on- screen. The first Hammer film to “benefit” from the changes was The Vampire Lovers, a loose adaptation of the Sheridan Le Fanu novella Carmilla. The film became famous for the nudity of its stars, Ingrid Pitt and Madeline Smith, and its depiction of lesbian sex. Despite its success, says Hearn, “I think a lot of old school Hammer enthusiasts
would regard it as where things started to go wrong. ... James Carreras, the manag- ing director of Hammer, said to Anthony Hinds, the executive producer, ‘It’s wonder- ful. We can do anything we want now.’ And Anthony Hinds said, ‘I’m not sure that’s such a great thing.’” Hinds may have been right. The censorship changes coupled with the withdrawal
of financial support from American distributors in the late ’60s, as well as the decision by Hollywood to make their own horror films instead of subcontracting them to the likes of Hammer, meant that the studio had less money to make movies and had to compete with Hollywood product. The increasing explicitness of the company’s out- put was a foregone conclusion. Hearn says, “The whole process became quite accelerated and reached its con-
clusion with a naked teenage nun in [1976’s] To the Devil a Daughter. There’s liter- ally nowhere to go after that.” Until now, perhaps. The recent resurrection of the Hammer name by the Exclusive
Media Group means that a new generation of Hammer starlets could be on the hori- zon, although the new Hammer’s current slate of films, which includes the Hilary Swank thriller The Resident and the American remake of the acclaimed Swedish vam- pire film Let the Right One In, shows little interest in reviving the idea of Hammer glamour. “It’s a very difficult situation the new producers find themselves in,” says Hearn,
“having to reinvent Hammer horror for a modern audience in a way that doesn’t ac- tually betray the legacy.” Pitt, who filmed a cameo for the new Hammer’s first production, an “interactive
web serial” called Beyond the Rave, is less diplomatic. “I arrived at a dilapidated warehouse in the middle of the night, sat around in a cold
and musty room for about four hours, then went onto a set for approximately 25 min- utes and was waved the long goodbye,” she says. “Perhaps I did feel a little bit ex- ploited about that. It was obvious the new Hammer lot were only interested in using my name. I believe my cameo wasn’t even in the finished film, although my name was still in the publicity. Damn! I’ve been exploited!” The question of whether or not Hammer exploited its female stars is a fair one to
ask, especially regarding its final days when producers Michael Style and Harry Fine, who “belonged to a rather more exploitative tradition,” according to Hearn, started directing the studio’s affairs.
Once Bitten: Ingrid Pitt in The Vampire Lovers, (below) Veronica Carlson and Christopher Lee in Dracula Has Risen from the Grave, and (opposite) Yutte Stensgaard in Lust for a Vampire.
“I didn’t speak to anyone who regretted taking part in a Hammer film,” Hearn says.
“I didn’t meet anyone who felt they were exploited. I really was expecting to when I started out. I really thought I’d meet some people who were embarrassed maybe or re- gretted the fact they’d done it, but they were all extremely grateful to Hammer for what they had done for them. I guess these films are, for these girls, a souvenir in a way. And they’ve actually been a more lasting legacy than they could ever have expected, because I think having a [role] in a Hammer horror is probably second only to having done a Bond film.” For her part, Ingrid Pitt never felt exploited by the old Hammer regime. Indeed, de-
spite its increasing reliance on nudity and graphic violence in the early ’70s, she knew exactly what she was signing up for. “How can you be exploited?!? You are offered a job (if you are extremely lucky), you
are told what the part is and what is expected of you and the input into your bank ac- count if you agree. If you are happy with that when you sign on the dotted line, how can anyone exploit you? Do scientists feel exploited when they split the atom or bank man- agers when they pick up their million quid bonuses? I really must withdraw to a dark room and consider how and when someone who agrees to do something can be ex- ploited.”
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100