When it comes to famous names in the history of Horror, Count Dracula has survived through the ages as one of the most famous, and one who’s had quite a legacy on screen. One of the Counts most classic and acclaimed movies was the 1958 British Picture “Dracula”, which outside of Europe is better known as “Horror of Dracula”. Following after the B-Sci-Fi movie boom of the 1950’s, Brittens Hammer Horror Studio brought back the classic monsters in a new colorful makeover, and by extent helped the genre find its roots again. “Horror of Dracula” was one of the first, marking Count Dracula’s first appearance in color, and more importantly … the first time he’d be played by Christopher Lee, who’d go on to portray the character in more films than any other actor.
Loosely based on Bram Stokers original novel, this version of the tale opens with Jonathan Harker arriving at a remote castle in Germany and is posing as a librarian to one Count Dracula. In reality, he’s there to kill a vampire, and knows of Dracula’s dark secret. His first attempt to slay Dracula culminates in the death of his vampire bride, and his own demise being transformed into an undead creature of the night. With the loss of his titular Queen, Dracula seeks out Harker’s extended family to find himself a new bride. Meanwhile, Harker’s mentor, Doctor Abraham Van Helsing picks up the trail and aims to put a stop to Dracula’s reign of terror, before he can take another innocent life. Similar to Stanley Kubrick’s 1980 picture “The Shining”, this film strays from its literary source material, but it hasn’t impeded its status as a classic. In truth, this is neither the most technically impressive, nor even the most frightening telling of the Dracula tale … but I’d argue it’s the classiest.
Most of the films appeal comes from director Terence Fishers’ sense of grandeur and Gothic aesthetic. The other half of the film’s strength comes from its cast, with Peter Cushing’s effortless class in the leading role of Van Helsing carrying the bulk of the film’s energy and intrigue.
At the time, Peter Cushing was most famous for his portrayals of Sherlock Holmes and the mad Doctor Frenkenstien, and he brings the same conviction to Van Helsing. Even after he memorably appeared in “Star Wars”, his screen appearance as Van Helsing remains my personal favorite of Peter Cushings career. Acting at his side is Michael Gough as Arthur Holmwood, a sceptic to Van Helsings talks of vampires, but eventually becomes his partner in battling Dracula in order to protect his family. Michael Gough would of course famously serve a man who adorns the look of a bat in Tim Burton’s 1989 classic “Batman”, so it’s cool to see him in this early picture, facing another famous creature of the night. Once again, he brings a good deal of sophistication to the film, and when paired with Peter Cushing, they are perfect at making the mundane exciting.
Most of the film’s vampire action, and even Dracula himself, are utilized sparingly, which is why this cast was so important to sustaining a tight pace, when there’s very little action in the narrative.
Naturally, the main appeal of the film is Christopher Lee in his iconic debut as Dracula. While Bela Lugosi’s 1931 “Dracula” classic set the iconic templet of the character, Christopher Lee’s portrayal likewise achieved legendary status as one of the great villains in horror cinema. He’s so commanding in the role, and when he struts about in his long cape, he gives off this presence like he’s the one and only Dracula. His introduction scene as the count is charming and benevolent, without a trace of what one would expect from a traditional Dracula performance. It makes for a sharp contrast for when the switch goes off, and he becomes a ravage beast of the night. He’s faster, deadlier, sinister and just plain awesome in the role, making him one of the definitive Dracula’s, and my personal favorite Vampire performance in the movies.
Naturally, being the first colored Dracula film, it marked the first to feature blood. Thankfully, as far as this first instalment is concerned, the gore is used sparingly and is mainly present in the iconography of Dracula’s bloody fangs. Also, despite featuring vampires, this first film curiously decides to ground its supernatural elements with limitations. Dracula can’t fly, climb walls or transform into bats, which may be off-putting for some fans. In the plus column, this film takes an intriguing approach with the Vampire victims, and how they treat their afflictions like drug attics hopelessly drawn to something that’s slowly killing them. For me, the creepiest part of the whole film is when Aunt Lucy embraces her vampire transformation and proceeds to draw her little niece out into the woods for a late-night snake.
For all the eerie moments in the film, there’s also a reserved sense of hummer too. One scene features a mortician recounting in a humorous quip how an old man took a fatal tumble while visiting – “He came to pay his respects … and remained to share them”. To reiterate, there isn’t much action on the surface, but the film is tightly paced and structured in a way that keeps me engaged. When something exciting happens, it pops, and the final battle between Dracula and Van Helsing remains one of the best of the genre. Seeing Van Helsing put two rods together to form a cross has become an iconic visual replicated in several vampire movies to follow. While the novel depicted the Count perishing after being stabbed by knives, this film features Dracula slowly melting away in the sunlight. For a late 1950’s picture, it’s an extraordinary death scene.
On the topic of comparisons to the book, many of the established characters are present in name, but the relationships are all switched around, while other characters are heavily altered.
The character of Jonathan Harker and events sounding him in the film are the biggest deviations from the book. Also, Dracula’s famous servant Renfield is absent all together. Perhaps the most curious deviation is switching the location of Dracula's castle from Transylvania to Germany ... maybe for closer proximity for the characters to travel, which for the sake of the film tightens the narrative. Again, this film is far from a faithful book adaption … but it makes up for it with a stealer presentation. The gothic scenery, captivating period setting and set design were all elevated above the original classics, and the overall tone is perfect. The film finds the perfect middle ground, with gore and sensuality present without being over kill … unlike the majority of its sequels and successors.
This film kicked off a massive franchise, with nine sequels, seven of which featured Christopher Lee back in his signature role.
My personal favorite is the third sequel from 1968 titled “Dracula has Risen from the Grave”, which by extent is probably my personal favorite Dracula movie. Outside of this series, Lee portrayed the titular Vampire King in a number of other films, including a second book adaption in 1970 titled “Count Dracula”, which was closer to the original text, but not as memorable a movie. By contrast, 1958’s “Horror of Dracula” remains one of the best and most classic of Dracula’s theatrical offerings. Many have debated this version as superior to the original 1933 classic. Regardless of which one you prefer, this film is one of the rare horror remakes that’s earned its status as a classic in its own right and was one of the absolute best Horror movies of the 1950's. Personally, it's remained of a favorite of mine, and I give it a stamp of recommendation to any long-time Dracula or Vampire movie fan.
.jpg)
Thanks for
reading my review of the 1958 Horror movie classic “Dracula” or “Horror
of Dracula” … and continue to enjoy the movies you Love!
No comments:
Post a Comment