Les demoniaques (1974)

Directed by: Jean Rollin | 91 minutes | horror | Actors: Lieva Lone, Patricia Hermenier, John Rico, Willy Braque, Paul Bisciglia, Louise Dhour, Ben Zimet, Mireille Dargent, Miletic Zivomir, Isabelle Copejans, Yves Collignon, Véronique Fanis, Monika, Jacqueline Priest, Anna Watican

This film expressionist is a horror film by the French director Jean Rollin, but the question is whether it offers the average horror enthusiast what can be expected on the basis of the storyline. This film is mainly dominated by style and atmosphere and their long-term survival, including the reproduction of surrealistic images. The storyline and logic are of minor importance in this film and this will often raise questions from the viewer.

The film begins by introducing a group of four beachcombers who are the villains in the story. The unflattering descriptions that are given of them soon prove to be correct when they leave the two castaways on the beach after the necessary beatings. And from here the strange and erratic nature of the film begins to emerge. Are the two girls really dead? According to the official synopsis of this film, they were killed immediately, but in that case the further developments in the story are incomprehensible. It therefore seems more likely that the drunken beachcombers have left them for dead and that their apparitions to the beachcombers captain are only caused by his drunkenness.

Further developments and images also raise questions. Can a person dressed as a clown really keep the villagers away from the ruins? And why should this be necessary if no one has been there in a hundred years? Where did the clown and the vampire’s tomb jailer come from? How do they survive in the ruins? Doesn’t it make more sense that after centuries of incarceration, the vampire should be more interested in the blood of the castaways than transferring his powers to them? Why don’t the two castaways take revenge on the beachcombers when they come face to face with the vampire’s powers? Why do they return aimlessly to the ruins instead? Rollin doesn’t seem to care too much about the logic within his storyline and also doesn’t bother to explain various ambiguities. What seems to be paramount in the film is the creation of style and atmospheric images in which a lot of attention is also paid to the emotions of various characters. Combined with the very slow pace of the film and repeatedly different lighting and camera work, this does result in a successful film in terms of style and evoked atmosphere, but behind the probability and logic of this and behind the actions of various characters it is possible some question marks.

In addition, in this film there seems to be repeated symbolism, which in a number of cases turns out to be something completely different. The Dracula figure is not a reference to the vampire in the ruins, but according to Rollin himself this figure was only included in the film so that Rollin himself would be mentioned in the book that one of the actors present was writing about Dracula in the cinema . There also appears to be no reference to anything behind the clown’s red pants and red wig, but this was only created to visually show the clown’s movements relative to the static background as an all the clearer contrast. (…move the clown with two red spots in that place where everything is immobilestartling effect, visually). There also seems to be symbolism in other images, but this is not always the case. In a slow and erratic film like this one, which regularly features surreal images, the search for the meaning behind symbols can indeed be interesting. But when things are created by the director on the basis of impressions of the moment, through improvisations created on the spot or through matters that play a role in the production of the film at the moment itself and therefore for the average The viewer cannot find a satisfactory explanation for this, which makes it a difficult film, although it underlines its capricious and strange character.

Identification with the main characters is hardly established. At first it seems that the two castaways must evoke the sympathy of the viewer by the atrocities they have to endure. But they are and remain colorless, lose their ability to speak and move through the film mainly woodenly and with blank facial expressions so that opportunities for identification or compassion are virtually non-existent. The film also focuses for the most part on the beachcombers, with Rollin appearing to be particularly interested in the motives, moods and violent atrocities of these villains. But they only come across as negative, they cannot be sympathetic and their violent and unscrupulous acts will only have a repulsive effect on the viewer. Rollin would have done well, if it was his intention to evoke sympathy from the viewer towards any character, to take a different approach in developing the various characters.

The frequent female nudes also stand out. The various female characters seem to have found a calling in taking their clothes on a regular basis or at least to wear as little concealing clothing as possible. However, the question quickly arises whether and to what extent this is functional. It seems the nude scenes were added to pique the interest of the (mainly male) viewer at a time when porn wasn’t here yet, but you could feel it was on its wayyou had to promise a few scenes would be on the edge. And indeed, most of the time it comes across as a rather perfunctory incident at a time when the boundaries of eroticism in films were still being explored. What also comes across as dated is the horror content in this film. Although the misdeeds of the beachcombers in particular are horrific enough, the horror in this film cannot be compared to the horror that the average horror enthusiast will know from other horror films of various origins from decades before this film was made.

This is a movie that will come across as a difficult movie to the average viewer. There are plenty of long-lasting style and atmospheric scenes, partly due to the use of various surrealistic images, but the question is whether this is enough to hold the attention of the average viewer. This is mainly due to the slow pace of the film, the question marks that can be placed behind various situations and events and the lack of logic, the lack of possibilities for identification or compassion, and the use of symbolism, which in a number of cases by the average viewer has little or no meaning at all. For these kinds of films, the viewer must love it or at least be open to it. This is said to be Rollin’s best film, and is therefore particularly recommended for his fans and for other lovers of expressionist and surrealist films.