Oct 091958
 
two reels

Vampire slayer Jonathan Harker (John Van Eyssen) journeys to Dracula’s castle, pretending to take a job as a librarian.  He fails to destroy Count Dracula (Christopher Lee) who kills him, and then takes revenge on his fiancé, Lucy (Carol Marsh), and her family, Arthur and Mina Holmwood (Michael Gough, Melissa Stribling).  Only Jonathan’s colleague, Doctor Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) can stop the vampire.

Monster movies had faded away in the late ’40s, to be replaced with horror tales of space aliens.  In 1957, Hammer studios resurrected the Universal creatures with The Curse of Frankenstein. As surprised as everyone else with the extent of their success, they put Dracula into production, and a dynasty was born. Together, these films changed how horror was made.  Gone was subtlety (well, Universal had tossed that out long before they were finished), meek sexless women, German Expressionism, and slow building tension; in were jump scares, pounding march music, buxom babes, and lush colors.  Hammer set the tone for horror for the next twenty years, and that influence is still present today. 1950s audiences were stunned by Dracula (re-titled Horror of Dracula in the U.S. to avoid confusion with the Lugosi Dracula which still enjoyed occasional theatrical screenings), finally seeing red blood and fast-paced violence. There was an outcry against this near pornographic film (how much of a real outcry is up for debate) which now seems comical.  There is no sex, nothing close to nudity, little violence, and the gore is reserved for a little ketchup-red, and completely unrealistic, blood.  But it was a different time.  To understand the history of cinematic horror, Horror of Dracula is a must see.

But if you aren’t in the mood for a film-studies class, Horror of Dracula doesn’t have much seduction left in it.  In general, I don’t think of films aging poorly, but this is an exception.  Its main draw was shock, and it isn’t shocking any more.  Without that now-missing kick, you’re left with little of interest.

Even less faithful to the book than the other unfaithful adaptations, this one starts with vampire hunter Jonathan Harker popping into Castle Dracula, now placed in some wonderland Romania that is within a nights carriage ride of a very English city.  He’s taken a job as a librarian for the count. Yes, the king of the undead, who has no servants, hires a librarian. Why? Except for a vague statement about having a lot of books, it isn’t explained. I’d hire a security guard first, especially for the crypt. Jonathan must have skipped Vampire 101 as it doesn’t occur to him that the voluptuous and over-acting babe that only comes out at night and lives with a vampire, might be a vampire herself. Either that, or he just likes hugging vampires. This, stupid-beyond-stupid move (hugging the girl) is necessary for the plot, and for no other reason. And he follows it with an act so mindless that even rabid fans of the film acknowledge it is problematic: with time running out before sunset, this vampire killer ignores Dracula and instead stakes the girl. Maybe, just maybe, it would be a good idea to kill the master of evil when you have the chance. Of course he might have deduced that Dracula is too dim to be a threat since he chose as his lair an unlocked crypt that allows the sun in. So, the entire story is based around one man acting as no one ever would.  Not a good start.

The film then switches focus to Van Helsing, who says things like “Jonathan is dead, but I won’t tell you under what circumstances.” Why doesn’t Arthur Holmwood call the cops about this mysterious homicide and have Van Helsing jailed? This is just glossed over, with Mina saying that he’s a well respected doctor. Yeah, that would be enough for me if my family members turned up dead. Yup.

Since 1950s audiences weren’t assumed to know the rules of vampirism, we get to hear them, recited by a recording of Van Helsing as the good doctor listens. Is that the cleverest exposition method they could think of?

The characters’ actions and thoughts continue to function purely to keep the plot moving.  In an odd piece of mental acrobatics, Van Helsing deduces that Dracula must be going “home” as soon as he finds that the vampire has grabbed Mina, stating it’s the only place he could go. Why? Dracula couldn’t have brought any more dirt to town (if that is the basis of the thought)?

The film isn’t aided by the scarcity of its title character, who only appears for a few minutes, and most of that time is spent running, often away from minimally threatening things, like Van Helsing. I guess it makes sense that he runs.  We only see him grapple briefly with his bride, Jonathan, and Van Helsing, and the last of the three holds his own in a brawl. Dracula might look tough, but apparently he’s a wimp.

You can’t expect much in the way of effects in the 1950s, which is good as you don’t get them. Particularly painful is the sight of sunlight striking the count, as it seems to turn his head briefly into some kind of Muppet. It’s difficult to become too involved with any drama that involves a dust-Muppet.

On the positive side, Van Helsing is less holier-than-thou than normal and Cushing does a credible job. Lee makes a savage vampire. His snarls and uncontrolled violence are the high points of the film. Many Dracula films suffer from the xenophobia and class consciousness of the source material, making it difficult to side with the “good guys.” When the heroes are trying to keep out foreign influences and retain a passionless social order with well defined classes, I’m ready to join the dark side. But in this version, all the underlying social structure has been discarded, leaving  a simpler good-Van Helsing vs. evil-Dracula dichotomy, making the inevitable end more satisfying.

I was amused to see that Gordon’s Gin was popular in the past as a bottle is sitting on the bar of the Germanic inn. But as the bottle is decidedly modern, I’m guessing it was transported to the past by Dracula’s evil powers.

The other Hammer Dracula films are: The Brides of Dracula (1960)—which lacked Dracula, Dracula, Prince of Darkness (1966), Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (1968), Taste the Blood of Dracula (1970),  Scars of Dracula (1971), Dracula A.D. 1972 (1972), The Satanic Rites of Dracula (1973), and The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires (1974).

 Reviews, Vampires Tagged with: