I maintain that every actor who has portrayed Dracula on screen or stage since 1931 has had to act around Bela Lugosi's iconic performance. While purists may take issue with the Todd Browning-directed film's faithfulness to the Bram Stoker novel, there's no denying that Lugosi's Eastern European accent, intense stare, and elegant carriage have defined the modern image of the vampire. A close second in the Dracula Stakes* is Christopher Lee, who first appeared in the role in the 1958 Hammer production, "Horror of Dracula," portraying a more monstrous, physically intimidating version of the Count.
*I'm accidentally punning this early in my musings. This can only go downhill from here...
Neither of these depictions of Dracula truly mirror Stoker's vision, and it would take the polarizing genre director Jess Franco to create what's arguably one of the more faithful versions of the novel in his 1970 film, "Count Dracula." Allow me to start out by saying that "Count Dracula" has a dream cast: Christopher Lee appears in the titular role, Klaus Kinski plays Renfield, Herbert Lom plays Van Helsing, Soledad Miranda appears as Lucy, and notable Franco regulars round out the remainder of the roles. Alas, now is the time for administering the harsh smelling salts of reality, as I will tell you that this is a solid film that should have been a transcendently marvelous film--it never really achieves the promise of its potential.
One of the challenges of a screen adaptation of "Dracula" is the fact that it's an epistolatory novel (relying on letters, diary entries, and news clippings to construct its story) with a whole mess of characters (there are seven distinctive protagonists without the convenient kind of stalk 'n' slash structure that more modern stories of a similar nature usually employ) and a large number of settings (including a castle, a ship, a decrepit abbey, and several distinguished English sitting rooms). The structure just doesn't lend itself to a ninety-minute horror movie! The trick is finding what can be removed and what's inherent to the tension of the story. Franco's "Count Dracula" keeps the number of characters, though he casts them in slightly different functions, and maintains the majority of the settings, but the result is simultaneously cramped and oddly slow.
The movie starts out at a fine clip, spending its first thirty minutes on Jonathan Harker's arrival in Transylvania and his subsequent encounters with Dracula. As played by Fred Williams, Harker's transformation from practical man of the modern age to terror-stricken victim of vampires is one of the best depictions of the character. Harker's struggle to maintain his propriety in the face of Dracula's increasingly bizarre behavior works well in this film. Another element that stays true to the source material is Dracula's appearance--he sports facial hair that evokes woodcut portraits of Vlad Tepes, the historical inspiration for the character. As the film progresses, Dracula looks more hale and hearty (but never once does he sport the infamous "butthead updo" from the Coppola film, a decision for which I think we can all thank Jess Franco). Once Harker winds up back in England (under circumstances that are frankly not explained in the film), the remaining two thirds of the movie are set in the insane asylum run by Dr. Van Helsing and the characters' growing realization that Harker is not mad, and that vampires are not mythical creatures.
Significant portions of the movie are filmed on location in Spain, with the beautiful plazas, historical churches, and verdant landscape lending a sumptuous texture to the modest production. Seeing the period-attired characters walk through vaulted lobbies and pass under gothic arches adds a realness to the proceedings that's in contrast to the stagey (but no less magical) indoor sets of the Hammer and Universal movies. The costuming is adequate, though never stunning, but there are some wonderful surprises in the mise en scene, such as the vintage horse-drawn hearse employed during Lucy's funeral.
What's missing from the execution is the kind of clever camerawork that Franco displayed in his other films from this period. There are some crash-zooms and some fisheye lens, but otherwise the cinematography is straightforward and narrative. The most evocative camerawork occurs in the scenes in which Kinski's Renfield is shown acting out his largely-silent madness inside of a padded room. And really--you could pretty much just point a camera at Kinski and catch something interesting, so it's difficult to tell if the effectiveness of these scenes is more due to the skill of the actor or of the director.
Franco's Fu Manchu epics go off the rails into craziness, his female vampire tales are overwhelmingly erotic, and his earlier mad science films are stylish and provocative with their sexualize violence. Sadly, Franco's "Count Dracula" has more raw acting talent in its favor than all of those films combined, and yet it's not as compelling as any of them individually. It's just an incredibly literal film, pointing its attention at scenes and stitching them together to make a cohesive narrative. There's very little of the subversive joy that exists in Franco's best efforts.
Don't get me wrong--"Count Dracula" isn't a waste of time for vampire fans or for Eurotrash enthusiasts. In addition to the fun of seeing so many familiar faces in a single film, there are some truly bizarro moments. One tidbit not found in Stoker's novel that's added here is Dracula's fondness for taxidermy, and his ability to control said taxidermy with his vampiric brainpower.
It would've been great if "Count Dracula" was an unsung classic and I could unconditionally sing its praises. Sadly, though, its flaws outweigh its not-insignificant merits. It's an interesting take on Bram Stoker's novel, and makes a nice companion piece to the iconic Universal and Hammer adaptations, but in no way does it dethrone those superior films.
10 comments:
I couldn't agree more, darlin... I think this is one of the dullest of all the Dracula's, the only part I like is when Lee starts raving about his family history and says: "THAT was a Dracula INDEED."
One thing that turns me off about a lot of low budget rented castle and villa location shoots is when the interiors of said ancient stone buildings are all painted white, presumably by the owners, the way some people paint over their exposed brick because somewhere some ideal realtor told them painted bricks and mortar has more resale value, or its protective or prevents mold or something... the sight of castle interiors with their stones all painted white and looking like a depressed French baker's basement makes me want to kill myself or worse, switch off the TV and go outside and play. Give me Hammer's studio bound sets or Universal's mad 30s expressionism any day!
I found this version slow and stiff and awkward, and not even the pairing of Sir Chris and the sublime Soledad Miranda could save it. Better by far as a faithful adaptation is COUNT DRACULA, the 1977 BBC-TV version with Louis Jourdan.
I'm always nervous to disagree with my esteemed colleague, but I cannot hold my tongue! There's nothing about this film that screams "big budget", and I refuse to beleive that cheapskate Harry Alan TOWERRRRRRRS! put up more than a hundred bucks to shoot this film. There are great locations, but The Castle of Fu Manchu had great locations and could hardly be considerd a masterful production. Jess has never had much interest in a literal transcription of a book into a film (his Sade films should make that clear), so the film not working in the same way as Stoker's novel doesn't bother me one bit. Having stared glassy-eyed at too many conversations about it Peter Jackson betrayed Tolkein by making minor changes to the source material has taught me that this means a whole lot less to me than it does to most people, tho. Does it dethrone Lee's Hammer Draculas? No, but it does so many things a Hammer film would never do that I just don't see that as being a problem. We both know that I'm pretty much incapable of saying a bad thing about a film with Soledad Miranda, so I will fully admit that I'm a biased viewer, but I honestly think a viewer who can deal with Franco's Fu Manchu films should find plenty to like here. Plus, killer Bruno Nicolai score!
I'm with db on this one. First off, that Bruno Nicolai zither score is awesome. Granted, it's not the Vampyros Lesbos psychedelic weirdness, but that score would fit this about as well as it would fit Bambi. Second, Klaus Kinski IS Renfield. All the other performances of this character (Dwight Frye and Tom Waits come to mind) simply pale in comparison. Third, Chris Lee actually got some dialogue as Dracula! Fourth, Soledad as Lucy the vampiress menacing a child in a park was a great scene. And finally, in answer to Erich, the white walls of a castle interior isn't just painted brick. Often these buildings had interior walls made of plaster over the stone to provide insulation, color, etc (OK, I'll stop before this becomes Extra Makeover Crypt Addition).
I'll have to admit that part of this stems from my memories watching this on Saturday afternoons on Channel 9 as a kid (I used to root for rainouts b/c Channel 9 would run horror movies in place of the Mets games which, in the mid to late 70s were horror shows of a different kind). This was the first Franco I ever saw, and like pot, it was the entry level drug of choice for many of us Francophiles. Is it a little slow? Sure. But Franco has never been known for his breakneck pacing.
By the way, did you ever see Cuadecuc Vampir, a "documentary" filmed during the making of Count Dracula? It was basically behind the scenes footage shot MOS and in black and white. It used to be available on youtube.
Speaking of Hammer, is Satanic Rites any good? I've read so many polarizing reviews; on one hand it's the best Hammer Dracula movie, on the other, it's the worst, so I'm unsure whether or not to watch it.
Erich, I don't think I found this as dire as you did, but the interiors I found the most lacking were the ones inside Van Helsing's asylum. I mean, I don't ask for Caligari-style looney bins, but *some* expressionism would've been welcome! Thank heavens for Kinski's Renfield to add some much-needed madness.
Will, thank you for the rec! I will have to seek out that adaptation, as I think this is the first I'm hearing of it.
DB, never be worried about disagreeing--I totally appreciate the dialogue! But I'm not getting an "I hated this movie" vibe from my write-up--I liked it, without loving it :) I really, genuinely enjoy the Towers/Franco movies, but I didn't think this had the same snappiness to it. Granted, Stoker isn't as wacky as Rohmer, nor as sexual as de Sade, but I think there could have been some more gothickry going on here.
And yes, you and Fred are right about the score--it's great, and it fits really well. I also liked (but didn't mention) the inclusion of the Roma gypsies in the background (though I thought this element was more effectively used in Herzog's "Nosferatu").
Fred, much as I love KK, I really am a Dwight Frye girl in this case. KK is *fabulous*, but I think a childhood fondness for Frye's portrayal has carried over into adulthood :) Thank you for the documentary rec--I will seek it out!
Chris H, I like "Satanic Rites," but Baron XIII is a huge fan of that movie--it's one of his fave Hammers. Keep in mind we both like our hott mess movies, so your mileage may vary!
I've always felt that Christopher Lee would've been better off as a Shakespearean actor instead of working in the horror genre. On the other hand, Jonathan Frid (who is a bonafied Shakespearean actor) made for a great vampire on "Dark Shadows".
But my all - time favorite portrayals of Dracula were performed by Frank Langella and Gary Oldman.
I highly recommend Cuadecuc-Vampir, an experimental movie shot behind the scenes as Franco was making his Dracula. Far from being a making-of documentary, it winds up as an evocative, magical vision, with far more of Franco's visual flair than Franco's own movie: it helps that Portabella, the director, shoots into Franco's lights so the action is bathed in flares and halations, giving it a dreamy quality. Great soundtrack, too.
I think Christopher Lee's performance in this one is superb, but I agree the movie disappoints. This is a Jess Franco movie. A definite missed opportunity. Imagine a Dracula movie that is fairly faithful to the novel but adds lots of trademark Franco sleaze, trippiness, general craziness and all-around excess? It could have been so much fun.
I've always felt the film had a great cast, sets, locations, costumes, music, and a decent script. But the directing, lighting, sound, camerawork, editing, ALL work together to sabotage it.
Honestly, what is the matter with the camera-work in this film? I read that Franco's regular cameraman is considered the WORST to have ewver worked in the biz, and I believe it.
Sometime last year I managed to download a copy of the score from someone's blog, and ever since I've joked it was the "EVIL version of The Third Man". I think that about fits.
No question, the BBC COUNT DRACULA is vastly superior to this on just about ever level (despite being shot on cheap-looking videotape). But as good a job as Louis Jourdan did, whenever I watch that, I WISH that Christopher Lee had been in it. With his well-known love for the novel, it's criminal the BBC didn't get him for what turned out to be the most faithful adaptation ever made.
Post a Comment