The Dracula Movies.

[Ralph]

I totally agree it makes for a far more intersting thread to give more input. I also find it a lot easier to write my thoughts when I get enthusiastic.

[Anthony Williams]

ok, here goes...

Dracula

Tod Browning's interpretation of Dracula has approached nearly legendary status, apparently due to Bela Lugosi's interpretation of the character. Certainly, Lugosi was the first to portray the character as a sexually alluring figure.

However, the film has dated in a way in which Nosferatu, its immediate predecessor, hasn't. Nosferatu was a pioneering and groundbreaking film, involving many new filming techniques. Dracula, on the other hand, breaks little new ground, with relatively small-scale sets, especially the disappointing interior of Dr Seward's Sanitarium

Browning's Dracula simply fails to chill in the way in which Nosferatu does. Perhaps Nosferatu benefits from the style of early film, which invoke images of early newsreels, whilst Browning's film is obviously an early Hollywood production.

Lugosi's famous suave portrayal of the vampire does have a powerful presence onscreen, dominating the scenes in which he's in. Yet, I find that Lugosi's portrayal is somewhat overrated. As a fan of the original novel, the loss of the theme of disease within the character seriously detracts from my fascination with the character. However, his speech patterns (which were not, as urban legend would have it, learnt phonetically - by 1931, Lugosi had learnt to speak English as well as he ever would) are extremely comical, even bordering on the absurd at times. Likewise, the supposedly "eerie" shots of Lugosi with his eyes lit up come across as comical. Certainly, Lugosi is no Schreck, Lee or even Oldman.

Likewise, the style of direction is disappointing. The film is obviously an adaptation of the stage play, rather than the original novel. Having watched the accompanying documentries, it is a shame that Universal didn't have the budget at the time to film an adaptation of the novel. The direction is further let down when compared to the Spanish version of the film, recorded at the same time. Whilst the swooping camera movements of the Spanish version do wonders for the flow of the film, the somewhat static shots of Browning's version merely disappoint.

The sidelining of Harker is a massive oversight, with Renfield replacing him in Transylvania. Consequently, the encounter with the brides of Dracula is removed. This detracts from the film in two ways. Firstly, the encounter with the brides was always meant to represent sexual desire that had been repressed by the sociological attitudes of the time. Secondly, the removal of the brides consequently led to the omission of the line "this man belongs to me!", spoken by Dracula in relation to Harker, the homosexual overtones of which were always intended as a commentary on the sexual attitudes of the time.

To be honest, given the film's legendary status, I found it exceedingly disappointing - both as an adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel, and as a piece of cinema.

Ant x

[Wayne]

A very interesting & quite thought provoking review, Ant! I'd like to've read your A-Level paper!
Although i must say, i've never seen Lugosi's Dracula as 'suave'. Although compared to Orlok, i suppose he is!

[Anthony Williams]

A very interesting & quite thought provoking review, Ant! I'd like to've read your A-Level paper!

Thank you! I'll see if I can find any of my A-Level Dracula essays... I don't think I still have any of them, though!

Although i must say, i've never seen Lugosi's Dracula as 'suave'. Although compared to Orlok, i suppose he is!

Indeed. Whilst Lugosi may not be as suave as Christopher Lee or Gary Oldman, he is much more suave than Max Schreck's Orlok (who, to me, is the best portrayal of Dracula commited to film... although I'm happy to have my mind changed over the course of this thread!)

Ant x

[Wayne]

That's the thing though. Whilst i agree with some of your points supporting your position, I think are a lot of different aspects to Dracula as a character that come through is the novel. As i remember, Dracula was far more ambigous than just the 'monster' that Orlok was. Particularly near the beginning of the book, i remember him depicted with a rather very charming, courtly, rather aristocratic slant, which could be construed as suave to an extent? But certainly depicted as a fascinating & intelligent being, which is somewhat at odds with the Orlok representation? (Much as i like Orlok!)

[Wayne]

Not part of the main thread in terms of reveiwing the Dracula adaptaions, but i just thought i'd briefly touch on the sequels produced by Universal studios in the wake of their 1931 Dracula, which i've watched throughout yesterday & today.

Although technically not a sequel, the Spanish version of Dracula was produced at the same time Browning's 1931 movie. You can learn more about this version in the bonus extras on your Dracula 1931 disc. It seems widely regarded as better than Browning's in terms of it's direction. I think this is most evident once again in the earlier scenes, which are visually even better than Browning's version. But to detract from any improvement from the directors chair, i feel that the performances are quite inferior to Lugosi & co. On balance i still prefer the Lugosi/Browning version, despite my feelings about it's flaws. 4.5/10

Dracula's Daughter (1936).

An informal sequel to 'Dracula', which sees Edward Van Sloan return as Van Helsing to encounter Dracula's daughter, (played by Gloria Holden) who goes by the name of Countess Marya Zaleska.
In this film the Countess treats her vamprisim as a hereditary disease, she spends most the movie seeking to get rid of the family curse, - from turning up to claim her father's body, which she ritually burns, through to even seeking medical help in an effort to cure her lust for blood.
Gloria Holden is quite good in the part. She brings a certain hypnotic, on-screen presence to the role, & successfully manages to maintain a slightly sinister undertone, despite the film's overall leaning towards ambiguity. The film seems intent on remiding the viewer that there's no concrete evidence for her vampirism, & implying that she's simply a troubled, (& possibly mad) woman. Whilst this gives the film a certain air of mystery, it does rather dampen down the 'horror' film effect. It does make up for this somewhat with a few very evocative scenes where the Countess shows her mesmeric powers to great effect, & also a return to Castle Dracula towards the end of the film, where the Countess is seen rising from her coffin.
It's not the best of vampire movies, & it's probably a tad on the slow side. But nevertheless, it's still deeply atmospheric, & i it found even more watchable than the 1931 film which spawned it, which was helped by this film actually having a half decent score, & generally, slightly better performances, IMO. I'd give this one 6/10.

Son of Dracula (1943)

Although the Universal star Lon Chaney is most associated with his role as the 'Wolfman', he did infact play the Mummy several times, & also Frankenstein's monster in 'Ghost of Frankenstein', before appearing here as a version of Dracula. Unlike the previous film, no attempt is made to establish a link to the actual Dracula that appears in Universal's 1931 classic, except via a very loose mention in passing. I don't know quite why this film is called 'Son of Dracula'. Perhaps Universal didn't want to bother thinking up a way of ressurecting the original Count, or perhaps they felt that Lugosi being the only person to play Dracula up to this point, was too closely identified with the character by audiences to accept a portrayal by a different actor.
Anyway, although the film does score points on a number of other levels, it's my opinion that Chaney wasn't anything other than average as an actor, & i think his performance here reflects that.
In this film, Dracula, who is travelling 'incognito' as Count Alacard, (an idea later re-used in Hammer's: 'Dracula AD 1972') turns up in America on a southern plantation, & subsequently ends up in cohorts with a young hieress called Katherine Caldwell, who has a rather dark fascination with supernatural & occult matters.
The interesting slant with this movie is that Katherine isn't mesmerized by Dracula at all in the way that most of his female victims are. In fact, she has a plan to gain eternal life through being vampirised by Dracula, & for her fiancee to then destroy Dracula, leaving her to pass on the gift of immortality to him, so that they can spend eternity together.
It's a quite a busy little movie that sets into motion a fairly complex chain of events involving the various characters, which include a 'Professor Laslo', who is a 'Van Helsing' by proxy, who's very knowledgable about Dracula & vampires in general, played by J.Edward Bromberg, who IMO, gives a much more effective portrayal than his predecessor Edward Van Sloan did as Van Helsing. Robert Paige gives a largely convincing performance as Katherine's fiancee, & Louise Allbritton further augments the generally good performances in this film with an evocative performance as Katherine.
The movie also benefits from some nice visual set pieces, such as the highly eerie scene where Dracula first materializes from his coffin at in the swamp, & floats across the water to make his first contact with Katherine. The film utilizes several times the idea of Dracula transforming into & from a misty vapour, something which the later Hammer films would use to great effect.
In fact to be honest, there's not too much to fault this movie on, aside from Chaney's Dracula, who for me is the weakest link. The large framed Chaney looks like an older, slightly overweight Vincent Price, & although he looks visually imposing in at least one scene, where he throws Katherine's fiancee through a door, in a display of inhuman strength, He generally doesn't exude the malevolent demeanour that comes through in the best Dracula portrayals at certain times. His voice doesn't sound right somehow, & his acting unfortunately errs towards the side of wooden, for the most part.
As a film it has quite a lot going for it, & i'd probably give it a 7/10 were it not for the fact that the most important character of the film is overshadowed by the rest of the cast. So Chaney loses this production half a point, bring in a final score of 6.5/10.

House of Dracula (1945)

A year after 'Son of Dracula', Universal made the first of it's 'monster fests' in 1943, with 'Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman'. Their classic period was coming to an end, & they follwed up in 1944 with 'House of Frankenstein', which incorporated not only Frankenstein & the Wolfman, but also Count Dracula, played by John Carradine. (These 2 films are reviewed on the 'Don't Watch Alone' thread.)
Carradine's Dracula returned one more time along with Frankenstein & the Wolfman' in 1945's 'House of Dracula', which is the final film included on the Universal box set of Dracula movies.
Personally, i don't really class this as a proper Dracula movie, any more than 'House of Frankenstein'. It's merely a vehicle for Universal to bring their classic monsters together (with the conspicuoius exception of 'The Mummy') in one last outing before they're consigned to the humiliating fate of meeting with Abbot & Costello a couple of years later. (Poor Bela Lugosi!)
As a Dracula movie it's by far the poorest outing on this thread, but as a mildly entertaining, no-brainer romp, it's ok for a lazy Sunday afternoon's viewing, but it adds nothing to the Dracula mythos. John Carradine's performances as Dracula probably round out as slightly inferior to even Chaney's. The voice & overall acting is a bit better, but unfortunately Carridine's wildly staring eyes, which are supposed to be hypnotic, are pure comedy gold that will have you rolling in your seat. Carradine's Dracula exudes no real menace, & even wooden Lon Chaney managed a bit of that. So, with Abbot & Costello waiting just around the corner, Universal's conception of Dracula finished up on a sadly farcical note, that i'm sure Bram Stoker wouldnt've appreciated. Hard to rate this movie in context, but even viewing it as the Universal monster runaround that it is, It's only worth 5/10.

These 4 films are available on 2 double feature discs, & if anyone would particularly like to see them, feel free to PM me for a 'loan'.

Meanwhile, i plan to move on to the Hammer era roundabout next Wednesday.

[Carol Baynes]

Kudos to Wayne for covering the Dracula entries in Universal's horror canon! I have yet to see any of those.

By the way, am I right in saying that Bela Lugosi was to appear in one of the planned sequels, but some factors intervened? I know Lugosi became a Universal regular in their other series of horror films (most notably as Igor in the later Frankenstien films), and reprised his Dracula in the Abbot and Costello film (which I believe Tarantino commented 'when it's funny it's really funny, and when it's scary it's really scary!')

[Captain Tancredi]

I used to have the Lugosi Dracula with Philip Glass soundtrack on VHS (in fact it was my Halloween viewing for several years) however it looks as if it went to the charity shop several months ago when I had my VHS purge. If only I'd known Wayne was going to start the thread six months ago I could have held on to it...

[Wayne]

Kudos to Wayne for covering the Dracula entries in Universal's horror canon! I have yet to see any of those.

By the way, am I right in saying that Bela Lugosi was to appear in one of the planned sequels, but some factors intervened? I know Lugosi became a Universal regular in their other series of horror films (most notably as Igor in the later Frankenstien films), and reprised his Dracula in the Abbot and Costello film (which I believe Tarantino commented 'when it's funny it's really funny, and when it's scary it's really scary!')

Thanks Countess. Any vampire tales from Prague?

I don't know whether Lugosi was to appear in any of the sequels, but it does make you wonder, as he was the obvious choice.

Meanwhile, my midnight movie tomorrow night (or technically, tonight) will the Hammer Dracula.
I think everyone except Paul has watched the 1931 film, but we can't wait forever. Time to change the avatar & sig in readiness.

[Milky Tears]

I stand by my comprehensive review earlier in this thread...

"it's all downhill after Murnau's effort"*



Almost dug out the Nosferatu bits from my massive Murnau and expressionism uni essay the other week, but I was too lazy to retype thousands of words, it would destroy my PS reputation and was too long/w*nky/anal/wide.



* well, there's a slight upward curve round about 1958-66.

[Wayne]

* well, there's a slight upward curve round about 1958-66.

I can still remember your post on the old board about the restoration on the BFI dvd. You had a link to a site with pics, explaining all about the tinting & stuff. It was your post that made me decide specifically to wait for the BFI release. I bet you can't remember that, can you?

[Carol Baynes]

I'm thirsty! I can't wait!

DRACULA (aka HORROR OF DRACULA) (Terence Fisher, 1958)

Hammer studios are often said to have re-made all the horror classics that Universal had such success with in the 1930s and ‘40s. While this is true to an extent, the treatment of the material is far different. This, of course, is what gave Hammer Horror it’s appeal and was arguably its raison d’etre. Everything was in colour, and the horror was bloodier and gaudier, at least by the standards of the time. But what of Hammer’s “Dracula” in particular?

Well, I have to say Terence Fisher’s Hammer version of “Dracula” is a very economical one, running at less than 80 minutes. Jimmy Sangster’s faster paced and ‘punchier’ adaptation of the Stoker novel necessitates the loss of much of the original story’s material, most notably Renfield, the Carfax estate and Dracula’s actual journey to and from Romania. While it’s always good to see these events (as they are an integral part of the story), Hammer’s version allows for this by re-editing the story to manage without them. Whether it should is another argument to be had I suppose. One of the first changes I noticed, for example, was Harker’s journey to Castle Dracula was to work as a librarian (a pretence to hide the fact that he is actually there to destroy Dracula; something which doesn’t happen until the end of the film, of course.)
It’s also more sexual and (as mentioned) bloodier than previous versions, although the amount of blood on show is paltry compared to the litres even Hammer studios would throw at us throughout the ‘60s and ‘70s.
One especially pleasing difference with this version are the performances. The cast are generally very good, and there are few of the mannered, wooden performances seen in Todd Browning’s 1931 version, which was still very much seen as the definitive version when this film was released. Peter Cushing is wonderfully sincere and engaging as Van Helsing and Michael Gough offers a stoic cynicism, melting to humble purveyor of justice. Carol Marsh was also very good, and her turn as the vampiric version of Lucy is perhaps a turning point for the Dracula adaptations, for at last we get to see fangs! Hisssssssss!!!
Speaking of which, Christopher Lee is a magnetic presence throughout the film, despite his lesser screen time. I’m not convinced this is his strongest outing as the Count (I believe seven more were to follow, of which I’ve seen a fair few, including another version of the novel, which we’ll come to in time). He certainly presents a strong template for future performers though, and his initial appearance is quite suave with a disturbing animalistic side emerging soon afterwards. Lee doesn’t get many lines in this film, and I do think that was a shame, but despite my reservations about that the performance does work very well for this version.

There’s also a nice atmosphere throughout, although not quite as oppressive as the 1931 version, and the production design is pleasing. Dracula’s castle is a case in point, looking rather cleaner and more style conscious than most of Dracula’s homes! The whole film is perhaps more accessible for a modern audience in comparison to Browning’s adaptation, and particularly Murnau’s. There is a some nice original dialogue and some pleasing attempts at a scientific angle to the ‘vampire problem’ in Van Helsing’s discussions, which a more savvy modern viewer will perhaps appreciate. The whole production is, as I said, quite economical and although not particularly scary is quite engaging and does it’s best to entertain. Hammer would present more thrilling spectacles than this, but it’s still a very worthy addition to the Dracula canon and while not my favourite Hammer, I do hold it in high esteem.

[Ralph]

1958....and Dracula becomes entertainment

What I love about the best years of Hammer movies is that they go for the jugular and aim for entertainment above all else – just what the audience needed after all those corny Universals! When I was growing up in the 70s this movie hit the spot where the Universals had failed and as Carol points out clearly with colour should have made more impact. The introduction of colour TV at that time was also ideal for Hammer’s gore to be aired in all it’s vivid glory.

The first Hammer Dracula hits a high note from the word go with a first class score. The music is so critical for dramatic impact in these movies creating the atmosphere of impending doom. Not the very best of The Hammer Dracs but a successful start and largely due to the first actor to really give Dracula real impact and a real sense of style. Nobody does it better than Lee, baby you’re the best! …and watching those creaky old movies I appreciate even more the skills of this actor. Given bugger all lines he still pulls off a dramatic presence and leaves a lasting impact … Also enter Van Helsing played with conviction by Cushing, a fellow master of the genre. Yes it’s the Cushing/Lee dream ticket!

The film to me feels a bit more dated than some of the later ones when the Hammers hit their full stride by the mid 60s. But it shows great promise for the future and alongside Curse of Frankenstein definitely gets the Hammer ball rolling nicely.

No nodding off for me on this one – Dracula has arrived!

[Carol Baynes]

I agree with Ralph there about thee music; very good indeed. Also, the opening sequence is very nicely done with the titles shown over the image of the cross.

[Wayne]

I see we have queue jumpers. Oh for the days of politeness & ettiquette.
But seriously though, I look forward reading & responding to your comments tomorrow.

Meanwhile the forum has just informed me that my review is too long for one post! It's got about 3000 characters too many! Glad i wrote it in word pad, so's not to lose it. I'll have to post in two halves!

Part One, then.......


Dracula (1958) (aka: 'Horror of Dracula')

This is going to be a tricky one from the point of view of reconciling the fact that this film is a total bastardization of Stoker's novel, & the fact that i've loved the Hammer films since i was a kid, & along with the sequel, 'Dracula Prince of Darkness', it was the Hammer Draculas that got me into the whole thing in the first place. Although to be fair, the film only claims to be based on Bram Stoker's book, it does take some major liberties with the characters & their functions.

From the start, the film cuts straight to Jonathan Harker's arrival at Castle Dracula, with a bit of background given via narration from Harker's journal, which immediately gives away the fact that he is there for a specific purpose, with unpoken implications posed by it's grave & determined tone. All this is implicitly totally different from the character in the novel within the opening few minutes.
As Harker enters the castle, we see a domain depicted differently again. This is not a dark, dank, & decrepit place, full of cobwebs and rats, but a rather medievalesque, but well kept looking castle, boasting ornate carvings & furniture, with a huge, sturdy oak table, & a big open fire in front of which lies a big furry bear rug.
Then there enters not three, but a single 'bride of Dracula' who rather mysteriously implores Harker for help, at which point he establishes a major diversion from the novel, - He is not here to help Dracula purchase a property in England or indeed Bremmen as in 'Nosferatu', or anywhere else. Instead he's here as a librarian, employed by the Count to catalogue his library. Despite these divergences, these first few minutes are deeply atmospheric, & helped by a suitably sinister score by James Bernard, a strong sense of foreboding is established before the appearance of Dracula himself.

Dracula's entrance is one of my favourite scenes, largely because Christopher Lee gets to use that wonderfully sonorous voice of his, as he actually gets a fair bit of dialogue, rather than the just the hissing & snarling that he was usually reduced to later. I also like it because the viewer is kept guessing slightly. We see Harker's fearful face as the camera pans round until we see a tall shadowy figure at the top of the stairs. As the figure still in the shadows, descends the staircase, seemingly threateningly, to a full close up of Lee, it seems like the prelude to an attack. But instead, the Count merely offers the crisp greeting of a cordial aristocrat. There's almost a lightness of tone here which to my mind, fits perfectly with the sentence from Stoker's novel which i quoted as a comparison to Lugosi's introductory scene. This gives the character of Dracula a much more ambigious slant like Stoker's novel portrays, leaving the audience uncertain how to react, which IMO is much more effective than Lugosi's rather one dimensional villian. To my mind, though there are significant differences to the novel, everything about the film so far, has an all important flavour of 'English gothic', which captures the feel, of Stoker's work, in spite of the divergence in the details of the novel.

After Dracula has shown Harker to his room, there are yet more differences to the novel. We discover that Harker appears to be some sort of vampire slayer who's real purpose is to destroy Dracula, & his fiancee is not Mina, but Lucy. We later learn that it's not Lucy Westonrau, but Lucy Holmwood, & that Arthur Holmwood is not her suitor or husband, but her brother, who is married to Mina! I'm not really sure why Hammer felt it neccesary to change all these details of these various characters, except perhaps to make it more economic, but it still manages to maintain the correct feel to the film, which is perhaps more important. This is illustrated to great effect in Dracula's next appearance, as his 'bride' is about to bite Harker. Gone is the courtly, aristocratic Count of earlier, to be replaced by a snarling, red eyed vampire. Completely at odds with the first gentlemanly appearance of the Count, we have now seen the two sides to Dracula. Whereas Lugosi merely waves away the 'bride', the monstrous Lee throws the bride across the room in a fit of hissing rage, then half strangles Harker. The look on the Count's face as he does so, is one of sheer malevolence that totally eclipses Lugosi's portrayal, & in the first 15 minutes of the film, he is replaced by Christopher Lee in the popular imagination of Dracula for the next several decades.

When Harker awakens, he finds that he has been bitten, & resolves to destroy Dracula. Although it does seem slightly contrived that he just happens to awaken so close to the sunset. He's find the lair of Dracula & his bride, who are lying in their respective coffins, & perhaps foolisly stakes the bride first. (Why not Dracula?) Then of course the sun just happens to go down in the space of a few seconds, which always makes me grin when you think how gradual a sunset is. But i can forgive it for the sake of cinematic drama, & also because i love the scene! As we see light disappear through the tinted glass, James Bernard's music is stridently emphasising the danger, & whilst Harker's back is turned, Dracula, after we see him deliver the slightest of grins, makes his escape, only to appear at the top of the stairs to confront the terrified Harker...... I love it!

[Wayne]

Part 2.......


From this point on, the Hammer Dracula takes on another variant. Dracula does not travel to England, & this is a pity because i would like to've seen what Hammer would've done with the scenes aboard Dracula's 'ship of death'. Instead, the Lucy, Mina, Holmwood, etc... are living in the north east european town of Klausenberg, which not too far from the vincinity of Dracula's castle. Most of the Hammer Dracula's have a similar setting, & in a 19th Century period, which once again gives the productions that distinctly 'English Gothic' feel, that comes across as almost an allegory for Victorian England, despite the european locale. It's here that we meet the film's other principal character, Dr.Van Helsing, superbly played by the legendary Peter Cushing.
Cushing's Van Helsing is far more dynamic than any of his predecessors, or their allegorical counterparts. Like Van Helsing in the novel, he places equal importance in both the mystical, and in the scientific. Whilst he's dishing out the garlic on one hand, he's using a comtemporary dictaphone for recording his notes, which is carried over from the novel.
In another deviation from the novel, Van Helsing stakes Harker, & makes his way to his home to deliver the news to his family. It's here that we meet Arthur Holmwood, who becomes Van Helsing's somewhat unwilling assistant. Here his sister Lucy has been receiving nightly visits from Dracula, & eventually Van Helsing is called in to help, but alas he is too late to save Lucy, who convinces Gerda the housekeeper to remove the garlic that Van Helsing gave intructions to be used to protect her, But it's only after Holmwood reads Harker's diary, given to him by Van Helsing, that he starts to become convinced of his sister's fate.

This is followed by another favourite scene of mine, where the little girl Tania meets her Aunt Lucy, who is now a full vampire. This scene is a deiliciously creepy night time scene, which has an undertone of grave danger for the child, because the implication is that 'Aunt Lucy' would quite happily vampirize her own young neice. This is something that Ann Rice's work touches on even more strongly. In 'Interview With A Vampire', Kirsten Dunst plays a vampirized child, & the message is that nothing is sacred to the vampire......
Luckily for young Tania, Lucy is spotted by Holmwood, who can't believe that he's seeing his sister, & she quickly tries to turn this to her advantage, but Van Helsing intercedes holding out a cross & burning her forehead with it. Not only does Carol Marsh make an excellent job of playing the vampirized Lucy, but Cushing's look of grim determination as he advances on Lucy & eventually goes on to stake her, makes his Van Helsing wholly convincing. Only Michael Gough lets the side down slightly IMO, with his static & rather hammy portrayal of Holmwood.
Meanwhile, whilst Van Helsing & Holmwood begin to make efforts to track down Dracula, they soon discover that the cunning Count has made Mina his next intended victim.

Up to now we've seen hints of the Count's sensuality in Lee's performance, but nothing explicit. Dracula as written by Stoker did indeed have a sensual & possibly even sexual side to his nature, but as i remember, he was always portrayed as slightly abhorrent at the same time. Beguiling, but never really 'attractive'. Some people dislike the fact that Hammer went against this factor, & gave Christopher Lee's Dracula a certain sexual attraction. Lee has the combination of being quite good looking, but in a slightly demonic way, & Hammer definitely used this appeal.
When we see Dracula make his moves on Mina, this is the first time the Count is seen with these distinctly sensual/sexual overtones. Melissa Stribling who plays Mina, whilst successfully getting across Mina's fear of Dracula as he approaches her, also manages to give off a marvelously subtle sense of anticipation in her facial expressions. Lee for his part, is both malevolent & dominating, but before the Count goes for the neck, he tantalizingly plays about Mina's face. Almost, but not quite kissing her, seemingly sniffing at her skin. It's all marvelously seductive & yet at the same time, it never lose the sense of danger. I think it's a combination that works really well, even if it was never quite like that in the novel.

Mina is saved only when Van Helsing performs a blood transfusion from Holmwood, & after Van Helsing discovers Dracula's coffin in the cellar, Dracula abducts Mina & makes off back for the castle, before dawn breaks. After a frantic coach & horses chase, there's a final confrontation between Dracula & Van Helsing in the castle. Dracula of course has great strength, but the wiley Van Helsing feigns unconciousness, & so catches Dracula off guard. In a fantastic, edge of the seat climax to the film, which in striking contrast to the feeble, anti-climatic ending to the Universal production, Van Helsing launches himself across the top of the huge oak table, & as if egged on by James Bernard's dramatic music, lunges at the great curtains, tearing them down with his body weight.
As i noted in my 'Nosferatu' review, sunlight did not destroy Dracula in Stoker's novel, he was only weakend by it, but perhaps Hammer took their cue from Murnau in making sunlight deadly to Dracula. It has certainly become an ingrained part of the vampire mythos in films.
As the shaft of sunlight penetrates the room, Dracula's foot is caught, & Van Helsing forces the disabled Dracula fully into the sunlight by advancing on him with two candlesticks held together in the shape of a cross. Dracula's body collapses like a deflating balloon, & disintegrates to a fine ash in what i think is a brilliant ending to this pacy, gutsy adaptation.

Hammer would eventually follow up with several sequels, which i'll touch at some point over the next week. Whilst some of the latter sequels were getting rather poor, particularly IMO, when they tried to move Dracula out of the gothic setting & into the contemporary era, they a created a Dracula in Christopher Lee that was to become totally iconic, & is still arguably the most popular & memorable portrayal to date. Despite the fact that techinically, this first film is probably the most unfaithful of all the adapatations of Stoker's novel, It still remains my personal favourite, & there wouldn't be a contender to it's crown until another certain adaption which i adore, was made many years later. The Hammer era for me is the equivalent of the Pertwee era in terms of personal nostalgia, & you all know how much i love that! So for me, this film gets 9.5/10 based on pure enjoyability factor.

[Ralph]

Fabulous review Wayne!

Both yourself and Carol put me to shame

Regarding the sunset scenes:

I guess filmaker's really have to take liberties to get the viewer on the edge of their seat.. If I was going down into Dracula's lair I think I'd do it at 12 noon with the sun highest in the sky! It always feels frustrating that they only have a few minutes But then there'd be no fun!

[Logo Polish]

Horror of Dracula (1958)

The opening scenes of this take on the story can be misleading, especially if you already know the basics of the original version. Harker initially seems the same innocent as usual, giving little away about his reactions on arriving at the castle and finding the meal, with even his apparent bewilderment at encountering the imploring woman there not very clearly or heavily expressed. His claim to be taking up a job as a librarian there seems to confirm his traditional status as a guileless victim, even though that's a very different narrative reason to the usual one for his presence there.

But, as emerges when he's been escorted to his room, this Harker is actually a would-be vampire hunter in alliance with Van Helsing, and it's all a plot to kill off Dracula. In which case, it's firstly rather brave of him to write this intention down while staying at the latter's castle, and secondly a little odd that he chooses to stake the "bride" before Dracula on finding both their coffins, especially as the latter has already been established as far more dangerous.

Although Harker is a much more minor character here than normal, something of a facilitator for the main plot (his traditional role is mostly taken by Arthur Holmwood), his section at the beginning does do a lot to establish the nature of this film's Dracula (so much so that the character barely appears throughout the rest of the film except towards the very end). Christopher Lee has a gaunt and imposing presence, with a definite sinister charm in his manner. Stern, forbidding, but coolly polite, he radiates a palpable sense of self-assured power and authority. The predatory, wolfish nature that this facade is holding back becomes evident in the scenes where he attacks Harker and the bride, throwing himself at them with bloodied fangs and mad fiery eyes, gripping viciously at the former's throat.

Much of the rest of the film is a battle of wits between Van Helsing and Dracula's plans, with Holmwood gradually coming round to be a reliable ally for the former. It's not easy for him, as the story involves several of his closest family members being killed or coming close to death, and his initial resentment of Van Helsing, blaming him for the disasters, takes a long time to fully overcome. It's only after the encounter with his undead sister that all his doubts seem to be overcome, although his resisting Van Helsing's idea of using the undead Lucy to lead them to Dracula will almost end up causing him even more tragic consequences.

The sexual symbolism of the vampire concept seems much more obvious here. While not really a sexually explicit film by any means, the way in which it's shown to be necessary to protect young women in bed at night from the prowling charismatic Dracula, who might corrupt or initiate them, has fairly clear connotations. Carol Marsh, an actor of the time who seems to have had a particular talent for playing vulnerable and slightly out-of-it characters (she can be seen as Pinkie's apparently doomed girlfriend in "Brighton Rock"), brings a wide-eyed helplessness to Lucy as a victim which is nicely counterpointed by the slyness and wild malice she gives to the undead version. You get the feeling she quite enjoyed playing the latter, and the implication of those scenes, that she's preparing to kill her child-niece, is effectively nasty.

Interesting to note that this film also debunks the notion of vampires being able to turn into bats (in contrast to the Bela Lugosi one), and there's also considerable use of crucifixes (true Christian symbolism defying and defeating the parody of the Resurrection implied by the undead rising after three days) Indeed, the whole would-be science underlying vampires is brought out far more effectively here than before, if only because Peter Cushing manages to make it compelling. I would say that Cushing's performance here is easily the best I've yet seen in any of the three films for this thread so far. He plays Van Helsing with a dogged integrity and authority, with Michael Gough's Holmwood the incredulous layman for him to explain everything to. It's also Cushing who has the honour of finally finishing off Dracula in spectacular fashion, while also re-affirming the "sunlight kills vampires" convention. Easily the most dramatic and vivid destruction of the character so far though, despite the dust-face with eyes stage just before his final decomposition looking a little silly.

The style of the film is very bold and grand for its time, with lots of booming and frenzied dramatic music for key points, blood red lettering for the titles, and rich period atmosphere and designs (lurid reds and browns often predominating). It's also the first film made in England in this selection, and with none of the characters - not even Dracula - having European accents, despite the setting, it does feel like a distinctively English reimagining on the legend, with the story retold much more flexibly than before.

[Logo Polish]

By the way, kudos to Carol and Wayne, especially the latter's extremely long and detailed review. It's interesting to hear from people who know these films well of old. I'm a bit of a novice with Dracula films really. Until starting on this thread, I'd only seen the 1958 one, out of all of these, bar the odd clip, and I think that may well have been in the 80s. I do roughly know the "proper" story, having seen a stage play that was supposed to be fairly authentic, and having read a bit about the book. Otherwise my main prior knowledge of the films was via clips and comedy sketches and things like that.

[Thasc]

Some excellent reviews there, well done to everybody

[Wayne]

Fabulous review Wayne!
Both yourself and Carol put me to shame

By the way, kudos to Carol and Wayne, especially the latter's extremely long and detailed review.

Thanks guys. You can tell the Hammer version is my favourite, can't you? I think i'm far more of a Dracula geek than a Dr.Who geek.
Meanwhile, i've read all your thoughts now. Great stuff! I'll be back with a proper response later.
Meanwhile, if i can just backtrack slightly...... With regard to Carol's earlier question about Lugosi returning as Dracula.
It occurred to me a moment ago that maybe Carol was thinking of Todd Browning's next Universal movie after Dracula, called 'Mark of the Vampire'?
From the pic below, you could easily be forgiven for thinking Lugosi was playing Dracula. In fact, i assumed it was Dracula for a long time before i found out differently.

[Wayne]

DRACULA (aka HORROR OF DRACULA) (Terence Fisher, 1958)

Everything was in colour, and the horror was bloodier and gaudier, at least by the standards of the time. But what of Hammer’s “Dracula” in particular?

Well, I have to say Terence Fisher’s Hammer version of “Dracula” is a very economical one, running at less than 80 minutes. Jimmy Sangster’s faster paced and ‘punchier’ adaptation of the Stoker novel necessitates the loss of much of the original story’s material, most notably Renfield, the Carfax estate and Dracula’s actual journey to and from Romania. While it’s always good to see these events (as they are an integral part of the story), Hammer’s version allows for this by re-editing the story to manage without them. Whether it should is another argument to be had I suppose. One of the first changes I noticed, for example, was Harker’s journey to Castle Dracula was to work as a librarian (a pretence to hide the fact that he is actually there to destroy Dracula; something which doesn’t happen until the end of the film, of course.)

The cast are generally very good, and there are few of the mannered, wooden performances seen in Todd Browning’s 1931 version, which was still very much seen as the definitive version when this film was released. Peter Cushing is wonderfully sincere and engaging as Van Helsing and Michael Gough offers a stoic cynicism, melting to humble purveyor of justice. Carol Marsh was also very good, and her turn as the vampiric version of Lucy is perhaps a turning point for the Dracula adaptations, for at last we get to see fangs! Hisssssssss!!!

Lee doesn’t get many lines in this film, and I do think that was a shame, but despite my reservations about that the performance does work very well for this version.

Dracula’s castle is a case in point, looking rather cleaner and more style conscious than most of Dracula’s homes! The whole film is perhaps more accessible for a modern audience in comparison to Browning’s adaptation, and particularly Murnau’s.

Can i just say Carol, how much enjoyed reading your review! We've picked up on many of the same points, & i particulary agree with the above segments from your comments.
With regard to Lee's lack of lines, Whilst it's true that he doesn't really get to say anything after the opening introductory scene, that scene in itself represents a lot more than he would get to say in some of forthcoming sequels. As i remember, he gets a bit to say in 'Scars of Dracula', but if memory serves he's virtually mute in at least 2 of the sequels. Anyway, more on that later.
Good point about Renfield being omitted, too. I'd forgotten that.

1958....and Dracula becomes entertainment

What I love about the best years of Hammer movies is that they go for the jugular and aim for entertainment above all else -

The first Hammer Dracula hits a high note from the word go with a first class score. The music is so critical for dramatic impact in these movies creating the atmosphere of impending doom. Not the very best of The Hammer Dracs but a successful start and largely due to the first actor to really give Dracula real impact and a real sense of style.

Given bugger all lines he still pulls off a dramatic presence and leaves a lasting impact … Also enter Van Helsing played with conviction by Cushing, a fellow master of the genre.

No nodding off for me on this one – Dracula has arrived!

Hurrah for Ralph! Obviously i knew you were keen on the Hammer era Ralph, & you make some good points there. I totally agree about the music, & Chris Lee's (& of course Peter Cushing's) impact.

Horror of Dracula (1958)

Christopher Lee has a gaunt and imposing presence, with a definite sinister charm in his manner. Stern, forbidding, but coolly polite, he radiates a palpable sense of self-assured power and authority. The predatory, wolfish nature that this facade is holding back becomes evident in the scenes where he attacks Harker and the bride, throwing himself at them with bloodied fangs and mad fiery eyes, gripping viciously at the former's throat.

The sexual symbolism of the vampire concept seems much more obvious here. While not really a sexually explicit film by any means, the way in which it's shown to be necessary to protect young women in bed at night from the prowling charismatic Dracula, who might corrupt or initiate them, has fairly clear connotations. Carol Marsh, an actor of the time who seems to have had a particular talent for playing vulnerable and slightly out-of-it characters (she can be seen as Pinkie's apparently doomed girlfriend in "Brighton Rock"), brings a wide-eyed helplessness to Lucy as a victim which is nicely counterpointed by the slyness and wild malice she gives to the undead version. You get the feeling she quite enjoyed playing the latter, and the implication of those scenes, that she's preparing to kill her child-niece, is effectively nasty.

Interesting to note that this film also debunks the notion of vampires being able to turn into bats (in contrast to the Bela Lugosi one), and there's also considerable use of crucifixes (true Christian symbolism defying and defeating the parody of the Resurrection implied by the undead rising after three days) Indeed, the whole would-be science underlying vampires is brought out far more effectively here than before, if only because Peter Cushing manages to make it compelling. I would say that Cushing's performance here is easily the best I've yet seen in any of the three films for this thread so far. He plays Van Helsing with a dogged integrity and authority.

It's also Cushing who has the honour of finally finishing off Dracula in spectacular fashion, while also re-affirming the "sunlight kills vampires" convention. Easily the most dramatic and vivid destruction of the character so far though, despite the dust-face with eyes stage just before his final decomposition looking a little silly.

The style of the film is very bold and grand for its time, with lots of booming and frenzied dramatic music for key points, blood red lettering for the titles, and rich period atmosphere and designs (lurid reds and browns often predominating). It's also the first film made in England in this selection, and with none of the characters - not even Dracula - having European accents, despite the setting, it does feel like a distinctively English reimagining on the legend, with the story retold much more flexibly than before.

I have to compliment you once again Logo on your descriptive talents that made your reviews so pleasing to read. I particularly enjoy & agree with the above points, especially as you've picked up on several things there that i hadn't thought of.


As i mentioned earlier: Although technically not part of the main thread, As with the Universal sequels, i will be touching on the Hammer sequels (particularly the 'gothic' ones rather than the 'contemporary' ones) sometime in the next week, before the next main movie.
I know that at least 3 of you have the 'gothic' sequels at least, but if anyone feels that they'd like to join in with their thoughts on the Hammer sequels, then feel free to PM me for a loan.
But meanwhile, we'll give the rest of the guys roundabout a week to catch up with their thoughts on this one.

[Carol Baynes]

Christopher Lee offers some candid thoughts on his years with Hammer in this great interview below, from about six years ago.

It's not what you think, either...

http://www.hammerfilms.com/features/..._lee_2001.html

[Wayne]

Christopher Lee offers some candid thoughts on his years with Hammer in this great interview below, from about six years ago.

It's not what you think, either...

http://www.hammerfilms.com/features/..._lee_2001.html

Thanks for that, Carol.
His stories of how he was 'persuaded' to do the subsequent Dracula sequels are well documented. However, that's the first time i've really gleaned any insight into why they did 'Brides of Dracula' without him.

[Carol Baynes]

They look like a fun couple.

With regards to Christopher, I'm pleased to know he regards his version of "Dracula" as a good film (which we would seem to agree with). I've been reading the Hammer reviews a lot of you have posted on th eother thread. I've seen a lot of them, but not recently, but will probably watch them all again when I've finished the Dracula Stoker adaptations.