The occult tarot deck is a powerful tool used in divination and spiritual practices. It draws upon occult symbolism and esoteric teachings to offer insight, guidance, and self-discovery. This tarot deck is not simply a deck of cards; it is a portal into the mystical realm, a source of wisdom and inspiration. The occult tarot deck consists of 78 cards divided into the major and minor arcana. The major arcana contains 22 cards, each representing a significant life lesson or spiritual archetype. These cards embody universal themes and profound teachings, providing deeper insights into the human experience.
These cards embody universal themes and profound teachings, providing deeper insights into the human experience. The minor arcana consists of four suits—wands, cups, swords, and pentacles—each representing a different element and aspect of life. The minor arcana cards provide more specific guidance and insights into everyday situations, relationships, and challenges.
Curse of Frankenstein – 1957
There have been dozen of Frankenstein movies over the years, but so far as I know only two real movie series. The Universal series began with Frankenstein in 1931 and ending with either House of Dracula in 1945 or Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein in 1948, depending on how much of a purist you are. (My money is on Abbott and Costello, but anyway). The other series is the Hammer series, beginning with Curse of Frankenstein in 1957 and ending with Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell in 1974.
Looking at Universal’s Frankenstein eighty years after its release, it looks a little creaky on a technical level. It’s easy to forget that it was a big budget, prestige picture in its day. The Hammer movies, on the other hand, were low budget British cheapies. Still, film technology advanced so far in the quarter century between Frankenstein and Curse of Frankenstein that the latter hold up pretty well technically against the former, in spite of lower budgets. The Monster’s makeup hasn’t stood the test of time the way Karloff’s has, and the sets are smaller and less impressive. Still, the costuming is great, the acting is more natural than you find in early talkies and the smaller lab looks less imposing but more practical.
This, I believe, was a key strength of the Hammer films. They never tried to match Hollywood for spectacle, instead relying on the strengths of the British film industry – decent actors, imposing mansion and castle locations, first rate period costumes and more dry wit than you can shake a stick at.
This is what the filmmakers brought to Curse of Frankenstein. In spite of that, it still manages not to be great. Partly this is because it doesn’t make a lick of damn sense, and partly because it’s attempts to hit the standard beats of a Frankenstein movie limit its potential. Mostly, though, it’s problem is a completely unnecessary lack of coherence between the framing story and the main story.
We open with Victor Frankenstein (Peter Cushing) in gaol, awaiting execution. He has summoned a priest–not, he says, because he is religious, but because he needs to explain his innocence to someone whose word carries weight.
Add some broth, a potato. Baby, you’ve got a stew going.
Flashback. Young Victor Frankenstein’s father dies. As a genius, he finds school limiting and so uses his inheritance to hire a tutor, Paul Krempe (Robert Urquhart). Paul teaches Victor everything he knows, and then runs out of lessons, so the two of them have to go exploring into the unknown. When Victor and Paul’s experiments bring a dog back to life, Victor insists on building a monster to be reanimated, because why the hell not. Paul decides this is a step to far, reasoning that such a thing must necessarily be evil, because why the hell wouldn’t it be?
The two men’s conflict is complicated by the arrival of Elizabeth (Hazel Court), Victor’s cousin/fiancé. Paul wants to stomp off in a huff, leaving Victor to his fate but feels he must remain to protect Elizabeth. Victor is less concerned about Elizabeth, and is carrying on an affair with his housemaid, Justine (Valerie Gaunt).
Freiherr Victor von Frankenstein: Player.
Victor begins collecting the best parts of talented people – sculptor’s hands, painter’s eyes and so on. Naturally, he needs a genius brain, so asks the great Professor Bernstein (Paul Hardtmuth) to visit. Then he murders the professor by pushing him over a balcony. Paul is so incensed to find Victor helping himself to Bernstein’s brain that he tussles with his friend, causing Victor to drop the brain bag.
Have a nice trip! See you in the Fall!
The Creature (Christopher Lee) is completed, but is a mindless monster. Victor blames Paul for damaging the brain, but honestly throwing Bernstein over a balcony onto his head might also have contributed. The creature escapes and kills the traditional blind man character. Paul and Victor pursue the thing, Victor having claimed to have called out the villagers to help. Paul shoots the Monster dead–which actually works, for once.
But Victor brings it back to life! Boo! Paul is horrified and steps up his attempts to convince Elizabeth to leave. Meanwhile, Justine tries to force Victor to marry her. He refuses, and she threatens to reveal his secrets. That night, she investigates the lab and Victor locks her in with the Monster, which kills her. Victor marries Elizabeth, the Monster escapes, Victor confronts his creation and shoots it. The Monster falls through a skylight into a vat of acid in Victor’s lab. Victor is arrested for the murder of Justine.
The Monster with the Golden Gun
Back in prison, Victor pleads with the priest, telling him that Justine’s death was not his doing. The priest is unsympathetic. Paul arrives, and Victor begs him to explain about the Monster. Paul does not do so. He leaves with the now-safe Elizabeth and Victor is taken to the guillotine .
The main part of the movie in flashback form works pretty well. It’s not the best plot, but not the worst. It has two interesting points which shape the future of the Hammer Frankensteins. Firstly, it is unclear whether Victor is amoral or genuinely malicious. Paul seems to believe – at least at first – that Victor can be talked out of the error of his ways. Certainly, Victor’s relationship to his creation seems more uncaring than actively evil. On the other hand, his willful murders of Bernstein and Justine and his repeated betrayals of Elizabeth (both in terms of cheating on her and of putting her at risk) suggest a genuine malice. Cushing plays up this ambiguity wonderfully, his acting suggesting that there are many more things going on in his warped genius brain than we are privileged to know about.
The second point is the Monster. The Monster is definitely underwhelming. It’s the great Christopher Lee in pretty decent makeup, but frankly that just makes it more disappointing. The Hammer Monster has none of the depth or humanity of Karloff’s iconic creature. It’s a purely animal thing, a creature of unthinking violence. The decision to play the role completely silent is interesting, but not interesting enough. Victors belief that all the parts contribute to the finished Creature, not just the brain is influential on later movies, but not really explored. It adds little to the character of the Monster.
These two issues – interesting Maker, boring Monster – set the course for the remainder of the Hammer Frankensteins. Unlike the Universal Frankensteins, which follow the Monster, the Hammer films follow the more complex figure of Victor Frankenstein the — sometimes evil, sometimes amoral, sometimes even sympathetic — monster-maker and ladies’ man. Following the adventures of Victor Frankenstein, Victorian villain gives the Hammer Frankensteins a variety that the later Universal Frankensteins lack with their repeated formula of ‘Monster wakes and knocks over some stuff’.
‘How’s your work coming along, dear?’ ‘Perfectly not evil, darling. Stay out of my lab! But seriously, it’s hardly evil at all.’
But wait, didn’t I say that the movie doesn’t make much sense? Yes. While the main story is more or less solid, the framing story makes the main story nonsensical. The entire conceit is that if Victor can convince the priest that he tells the truth, then he escapes execution. In fact, Victor basically admits to murdering Justine by means of locking her in with the Monster. What’s more, he admits to the murder of Dr Bernstein. It’s hard to imagine a Nineteenth Century court (or even a modern court in many jurisdictions) failing to judge the murder of a distinguished professor much, much more harshly than the murder of a housemaid.
This framing device is basically a homage to the German expressionist classic The Cabinet of Dr Caligari. This famously has a framing sequence which sheds doubt on the veracity of the main story. I suppose it’s possible that director Terrence Fisher and the writers of Curse of Frankenstein intended the same ambiguity, but that’s not really how it comes across.
If all we had to believe is that Frankenstein is delusional about having created a Monster, it might work. However, we also have to believe that he genuinely thinks his story exonerates him which still seems silly. Another option might be that he is attempting to feign madness to avoid execution, but wouldn’t the trial have been a better time to plead insanity?
I’d like to help you, Victor, but saving people isn’t really in my line, you know?
And that’s just looking at the film in isolation. The next film in the series, Revenge of Frankenstein, begins with Victor about to be guillotined and progresses from there into a story in which he is very definitely not deluded into believing that he is a mad scientist.
The Hammer Frankensteins, run very differently to the Universals. I have mentioned some of the ways they do so already, but there’s one other important difference. The Universal series peaks early. By most accounts (including my own), the Universal series reaches its greatest height with Bride of Frankenstein, the second film in the series. The Hammer series works differently. Curse is an enjoyable but deeply flawed film. With the Hammer Frankensteins, the best is definitely a long way down the road.
Freiherr Victor von Frankenstein: Player.
What sets the occult tarot deck apart from traditional tarot decks is the incorporation of occult symbolism and esoteric knowledge. The cards feature intricate artwork and symbolism drawn from ancient occult traditions, such as numerology, astrology, alchemy, and Kabbalah. These symbols and teachings add layers of depth and meaning to the readings, allowing for a more profound exploration of the subconscious and higher realms of consciousness. The occult tarot deck can be used for various purposes, including divination, meditation, personal growth, and spiritual development. When conducting a tarot reading with this deck, one taps into their intuition and psychic abilities to interpret the symbolism and messages within the cards. The readings offer guidance, clarity, and insight into one's past, present, and future, helping individuals make informed decisions and navigate life's challenges. Furthermore, the occult tarot deck can serve as a powerful tool for self-reflection and personal growth. It provides a mirror into the depths of one's psyche and illuminates areas that may require attention or healing. Through working with the cards, individuals can gain a deeper understanding of themselves, their patterns, and their life purpose, leading to profound transformation and empowerment. In conclusion, the occult tarot deck is a valuable and intricate tool that combines symbolism, esoteric knowledge, and intuitive guidance. It offers a profound exploration of the human experience and provides insight, wisdom, and self-discovery. Whether used for divination, meditation, or personal growth, the occult tarot deck holds the potential for deep transformation and spiritual awakening..
Reviews for "Connecting with Spirit Guides through the Occult Tarot Deck"
1. Sarah - 2 stars - I was really disappointed with the Occult tarot deck. The artwork was uninspiring and did not give me the eerie and mystical vibes I was hoping for. The quality of the cards was also lacking, with noticeable imperfections on many of them. The guidebook that came with the deck was confusing and did not provide enough information for a beginner like me. Overall, I would not recommend this deck to anyone looking for a truly occult and magical tarot experience.
2. John - 3 stars - I was drawn to the Occult tarot deck because of its intriguing theme, but unfortunately, it fell short of my expectations. The cards' illustrations were dark and mysterious, but lacked the depth and symbolism I was hoping for. The cardstock was thin and flimsy, making it difficult to shuffle and handle the cards without worrying about damaging them. The little white booklet that accompanied the deck was also disappointing, as it didn't provide enough detailed interpretations for each card. While the deck has potential, it needs improvement in terms of artwork quality and accompanying resources.
3. Emily - 2 stars - I found the Occult tarot deck to be quite underwhelming. The illustrations were inconsistent in style and quality, making it difficult to connect with the symbolism of the cards. The cardstock was thin and easily bent, which was disappointing considering the price I paid for the deck. Additionally, the guidebook lacked depth and didn't provide enough guidance for interpreting the cards. Overall, I was left feeling unsatisfied with this deck and would choose to invest in a different tarot deck with better artwork and accompanying resources.
4. James - 1 star - The Occult tarot deck was a complete letdown. The artwork was amateurish and lacked the sophistication I expected from a deck with such a promising theme. The cardstock was flimsy and prone to damage, making it difficult to handle the cards without fear of wear and tear. The guidebook included with the deck was a joke, providing generic interpretations that lacked any real depth or insight. Save yourself the disappointment and invest in a better quality tarot deck with more thoughtfully crafted illustrations.