Films That Witness Madness

review

THE MONSTER OF VENICE

A strange mixture of the giallo and the Krimi, THE MONSTER OF VENICE was released in 1965, one year after Mario Bava essayed the quintessential giallo film, BLOOD AND BLACK LACE. When compared to Bava's classic, THE MONSTER OF VENICE feels practically Stone Age. It is slow, methodical and completely devoid of flesh and bloodshed. While BLOOD AND BLACK LACE felt very modern, THE MONSTER OF VENICE feels about ten years older than actually is. None of these things keep the film from being highly enjoyable - and it is - but it definitely feels more like a history lesson than a true blood giallo.

But what do you expect? By 1965, the giallo film was still in it's infancy. The giallo would have to wait another four years before Argento came along and solidified all the ideas and mechanisms that were floating around into one cohesive whole. I don't think THE MONSTER OF VENICE tossed any of it's DNA into the mix. Dino Tavella's little film wasn't a success - it played the States in a highly edited form under the title THE ENBALMER and promptly vanished - and it's legacy is practically non-existent so I doubt anything about this film had anything to do with the formulation of the giallo film as we now know it. But that's all beside the point. THE MONSTER OF VENICE is still a great little film and well worth a view for giallo fans.

The story is very simple. Someone has been abducting young girls in Venice. The police have no clues to go on and no reason to think that there's anything strange about the disappearances. A newspaper reporter, Andrea, has been following the case. He believes a maniac is afoot but the police commissioner isn't buying his story. A group of women arrive from Rome and Andrea immediately takes a shining to one of them. Maureen, the middle-aged object of Andrea's affection, takes her party to a fancy hotel. Among their group is an older woman and her historian nephew, a shy, introverted man who is only interested in the now-drowned architecture of Venice. Andrea, only somewhat distracted by his new romance, continues to investigate as the number of missing girls increases. What he doesn't realize is that the killer is closer than he thinks. In fact, he's been storing the bodies in a room under the hotel, preserving them with a special brand of formaldehyde, displaying their bodies in a special tomb for his viewing pleasure.

Easy enough set-up, right? The film doesn't get bogged down in red herrings or shady dealings like the more modern gialli. It plays straight as an arrow, creating a simple mystery with a simple solution. Ahh but the devil's in the details here. The killer dons a wet suit at night, swimming under and through the channels of Venice, picking young girls off the streets. He then drags them under water to drown and swims with their corpses back to his embalming chamber. This allows for a few genuinely creepy moments. Several shots show nothing more than a faint glimmer of light moving through the black, murky waters of Venice, an effect enhanced by the black and white cinematography of the film, as the killer, flashlight in hand, approaches his prey. The final chase through the tunnels beneath the hotel is more Gothic than giallo. Narrow corridors are lined with dirt, water drips through cracks in the walls and a large room houses the decomposed bodies of monks. There are moments of genuine terror in THE MONSTER OF VENICE. It's a shame it devolves into routine action and ends with a ludicrous, poorly acted fist fight.

Venice is a damned creepy place. It is half-drowned and labyrinthine - Nicolas Roeg's DON'T LOOK NOW used the former to great effect while Aldo Lado's WHO SAW HER DIE? effectively utilizes the latter - and has an air of sadness about it. As a setting, Venice is largely wasted in the film but several moments - like the tour Andrea takes the women on - allow us to witness the sheer majesty of the location. I wish there were more of that in the film. Later gialli would use the settings of their films to much greater effect but it is unarguable that this film would not have existed were it not for Venice. Tavella weaves the unique city into the very fabric of the film but stops short at making it a real character. He's more interested in getting us deep down below the city and into the isolated, decaying structures beneath the hotel. For as talky and slow-going as the film's first half is, once we move below for the final third of the film, all is forgiven. It's here where THE MONSTER OF VENICE begins to pick up steam. It's a shame it ends just when it was starting to gain real momentum.

Overall, THE MONSTER OF VENICE is a winner. It's glacially paced at times, sure, but the story is enjoyable, the characters likeable and the tone spot-on. I enjoyed the nice jazz score and the film looks remarkably good considering it's obviously low budget. However, it is best looked at as a piece of giallo film history and not as a firm, solid entry in the genre.

Recommended.

DISCUSS THIS FILM IN THE FORUM! JUST CLICK HERE TO VISIT!