PART ONE - DRAC ON DRAC ACTION
Vampires, creatures of the night, the walking undead. What a load of complete and utter nonsense eh? Well yes and no. Less a horror villain and more a familiar face in popular culture, you can't move for the amount of blood drinking ghouls out there. They appear on breakfast cereal and children's television shows after all. Are they ever scary? It's hard to be sure when they have so many weaknesses. Are they appealing? I have to say yes. Despite the varying quality of the media involving Dracula and his followers there's something interesting about all of this. With or without the Gothic trappings of his original time period.
To get this all off to an appropriate start I have to take things back to the first, and most illegal, adaptation of Bram Stokers novel, Nosferatu. I quite like the title of the film and also the name they gave the Count in this. Both were chosen to (unsuccessfully) avoid a lawsuit at the time which is an interesting bit of period trivia. Though A Symphony of Horror is a bit of an odd subtitle for a silent
film perhaps? The film itself is of course iconic and the moments with
'Count Orlok' are impressively creepy considering its age, particularly the scenes in which he first attacks 'Jonathan 'Hutter' and the subsequent sea voyage.
These are the main standout moments but I also really
like what few special effects have been created. They're just simple animated techniques showing the supernatural powers of a vampire, but they retain a lot of charm. The only issue is that when he's not on screen the rest
of the film is a bit lacking, particularly the part where Renfield (or
whatever he isn't called in this version) escapes, as well as some of the usual period over acting. Like the original book the vampire's absence is felt when he's off screen. Still, it's good to
revisit your roots. (3/5)
There are many other versions of the story but I have to mention the direct remake of this one from 1979, Nosferatu: The Vampyre. Like The Fly, Invasion of the Body Snatchers or The Thing, it's another example of '70s and '80s horror remakes actually using their imagination to bring something new to the table. Kinski's version of Dracula is a melancholy and sympathetic take on the mythos. He comes across as lonely, but he's also kind of vile as a bringer of disease. The scenes with rats are greatly expanded and the whole thing has an atmosphere of death.
The stark horror moments from the black and white original are lost, but instead there's an uneasy mood throughout the whole film. The final chapter throws in a lot of new material including some unsettling scenes of the aftermath of a plague. It also looks impressive since most of the film is shot on location with some great European scenery in both rural and city sequences. Towards the end things really divert from the original plot and they throw in a few odd moments of dark comedy along the way. It's subtle, and overall it's an improvement on the original despite it lacking some those original iconic moments. (4/5)
Going backwards a little to the 1930s the first sound version of the story is another cinematic icon. So many versions of the character sound like they are emulating after all. The end results as a whole on the other hands are a little underwhelming.
After a great introductory build up with Bela Lugosi (who is definitely the star) with the film descends into wooden
romance and stage drama. Renfield is also a highlight - his raving 'rats, rats!' speech is great - the story has a lot of holes in it. Dracula's three brides are here, but after changing the many coffins of Dracula's home soil into specifically being three boxes, they never show up again. Why not leave them in the castle or choose to keep the invasion plot?
Lucy
still becomes a vampire but after being reported in the newspaper as attacking children she vanishes from the film. It's been censored and you have to see the Spanish version (filmed at night on the same sets) to what hints of her demise might have been included. Renfield is seen creeping towards a maid as if he will now hurt something bigger than an insect but nothing is shown. This might have been forgivable if the
ending wasn't also so neutered but the anti climax is simply toothless. The Count seems like an idiot choosing to sleep after seeing Van Helsing right outside, and his staking is also never shown. (3/5)
Moving on a few decades it's time for a burst of 1950s technicolour. In an apparent effort to do one over on Universal's first release, Hammer's version of Dracula (or Horror of Dracula) throws out the slow build ups in favour of pure speed and aggression. It's faster, gorier and sexier. Just check out how quickly they get in Dracula's first lines in place of the slow intentional dialogue of Bela Lugosi. The way he bursts onto the scene after his female companion tries to seduce Jonathan Harker is great. He's less undead and more blood frenzied animal.
The cobwebs are totally blown away and the story even opens with blood being splattered onto the screen. Even the showdown is all action with plenty of running and jumping. It seems weird to see this much action with Peter Cushing but he did this on others roles many years later. The film itself isn't perfect by any means and they still never get into the meat of the original story, but it's entertaining and brightly coloured. Ultimately it's just fun to see how this has evolved over time through each iteration. Dracula will rise once again in this run seasonal down, but stay tuned as next up there will be a little more... variety to say the least. (3/5)
(Part two) (Part three)
