So we saw the movie Many of us enjoyed it. But I’m sure all of us must have some questions. Post them here and maybe we can work through to the answers together. Those of you who have seen the full, unriffed version of this movie may be particularly helpful.
Who or what was the Perico character supposed to be? He’s surely not meant to be a scientist, is he? Yet he hangs around with, nay, he lives with this acclaimed scientist. He doesn’t seem to be a relative of any one, the way Santo’s niece is explained into the story. So, what was his purpose? I know “comic relief” is supposed to be the answer, but . . .
The doctor repels the vampire by means of a necklace of mistletoe (not garlic, thank goodness) and by use of an herb from the vamp’s native land. I’m curious, why not use the old reliable crucifix? Especially in a heavily Catholic culture like Mexico’s at the time, I would think showing the power of God over evil would have been welcome. Could perhaps the use of the cross for such a purpose (mindless entertainment) have been considered sacrilegious by the motion picture censors of the day?
Speaking of sacrilege, the end of the movie – they set off a massive explosion to destroy Drac’s secret “layer”, but in a cemetery! That’s not only sacrilegious, but also a crime just about anywhere you go! How did every one involved not go to prison for the rest of their lives?
How much nudity was cut out of the film? Are we talking just a a few seconds here and there or were entire scenes cut out?
Feel free to add questions, answers or comments about this oddly enjoyable movie.
Just imagine being a kid in Mexico in the '50s, seeing these comics and movies about El Santo, and then discovering he actually is a real guy. That must have been quite an experience. And ironically, Santo himself always considered himself not that great a wrestler, and for his whole life was mystified at why he in particular became such a beloved figure.
So, kinda like On Golden Pond, you mean.
But that raises another question. Were the nude bits added by the original filmmaker or were they just glommed onto the movie by outside forces?
I’m rather fascinated by the idea of that. It’s got to be a rather bizarre looking film, ADDING scenes of random naked women into an already finished film? The editing must be off the charts bad lol.
IMDB doesn’t go into details, but judging by this part…
It would either have to be the original director or someone higher up.
To take this a step further, after devouring all the Santo comics, imagine reading Spiderman and Batman and then discovering those aren’t real guys
Seem to be a simultaneous shoot, which is the interesting part.
What does this mean‽ I haven’t seen On Golden Pond in years but… I don’t remember anything like that
Ah, but you must not have seen the European edit . . .
I’m always baffled by Santos movies. He always wears his mask around in public and no one seems to think that’s strange. And even though he’s a luchadore wrestler and crime fighter and in this case he invents a time machine thing and no one bats an eye.
Well, from what I’ve read, that part is based on real life. He really did wear his mask everywhere in public. Nobody saw his face until after he retired. Oh, that we could saw the same about Perico.
Katherine Hepburn noooo!!!
(Katherine Hepburn yes!)
I was surprised by how faithful the 19th Century scenes were to the classic Dracula, even though they were goofy: there was Dracula visiting the house while the woman was taken ill, the mirror was smashed in his fury, and some of those scenes aped the Cushing/Lee movies in atmosphere, etc. It was definitely influenced by Hammer Films.
It is jarring that the classic elements of the Dracula myth were being viewed on a television by a Luchador scientist… As far as crucifixes, there was often censors who didn’t allow their use in many of those old movies, including a couple of Paul Naschy movies. They used talismans or silver knives shaped like rudimentary crosses, but clearly defined as daggars.
Favorite riff: One! Singular sensation! Ah ah!
It’s like a triple word score.
Perico is a lab assistant. Not a particularly competent one but he gets the prestige of ‘Assistant to El Santo’ on his resume.
Yes. I thought those scenes were some of the best of the movie. Good sets and costumes and they had the feel of a true gothic horror film. I would have been interested in a full movie’s worth of that stuff. No offense, Santo. Your “let’s watch the History Channel” scenes were okay too.
Actually that doesn’t seem to be the case…
At time point 18:30 there’s a scene in dracula’s cave that’s definitely using the actors from the main movie and at 24:00 a scene with the redhead. So the nude scenes were part of the original shoot, but they just did two different edits … one without and one with.
I just want to know why Perico wore the giant dollar sign necklace.
Per tradition, he would not reveal his face until retirement. In situations where he could not travel, appear, attend to needs etc in mask, he would do so away from or without his (for want of better term) entourage. Separate flights, arrangements etc. You’ve got to understand, this is a big deal.
A very quick aside- I’ll post up a separate thread on ‘Spanish Dracula’. Just not sure where yet.
Please check it out if you think you have no idea what I’m talking about.
But for now- 1931 Universal Dracula (Lugosi), was a fairly typical studio schedule piece of work.
Shot concurrently, using the same sets, props, you name it, was the Spanish language version.
In many ways it is superior, as the (brilliant move here) return of the dailies during their shooting hours meant that the director could study what had been done that day with the same set-ups, and modify his own efforts based on what he saw. One of the changes was to give the familiarly inept expert’s sidekick more screentime. Sense a theme here? ‘I, alas, am no Santo— but holy effing eff at least I am no Perico!!!’