Kelly WandHorror of Dracular
September 23rd 2006 03:10
Hammer Films were a big deal in their time. They pushed boundaries that the self censoring Hollywood had cocooned itself in. Here, for the very first time, was blood, sex and horror alive in technicolour with some half decent production values. They also had Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, superior actors capable of playing the good with a hint of cruelty and the bad with a touch of compassion.
However, like many things that shocked in their day, age has somewhat wearied them. The many Dracula and Frankenstien sequels that the company threw out in job lot followed the laws of diminishing returns straight towards the bargain bin.
The seldom seen “Horror of Dracula” is probably the jewel in the crown. A well written variation of the original Bram Stoker story, it downplays supernatural elements and is probably the first vampire film to talk in terms of infection and addiction. Lee is superb as the Count – his physical presence gives him a general air of nobility. Lee’s Count is also, quite obviously and – again – for the first time, a sexually driven being.
Lugosi’s “Dracula” played a little too much on the fear of the foreigner. He is a charming but essentially ugly man. Schrek’s Nosferatu is a creature that is barely human. Lee clearly wants more than blood. He wants body and soul.
Going over the plot and its variations of traditional themes is a complete waste of time. If you don’t know the Dracula story by now, you never will. As for the variations, surely they are what will make the story interesting for you.
The glory didn’t last. The script of the sequel “Dracula Prince of Darkness” was so pathetic that Lee didn’t want to say his lines. Thanks to some startling misuse of Christian iconography and a reinvigorated performance from Lee, “Dracula has risen from the Grave” at least passes muster as a sequel but it’s a downward spiral from there.
Perhaps, “Horror of Dracula” is little more than a curiosity these days but the curious will be rewarded.
However, like many things that shocked in their day, age has somewhat wearied them. The many Dracula and Frankenstien sequels that the company threw out in job lot followed the laws of diminishing returns straight towards the bargain bin.
The seldom seen “Horror of Dracula” is probably the jewel in the crown. A well written variation of the original Bram Stoker story, it downplays supernatural elements and is probably the first vampire film to talk in terms of infection and addiction. Lee is superb as the Count – his physical presence gives him a general air of nobility. Lee’s Count is also, quite obviously and – again – for the first time, a sexually driven being.
Lugosi’s “Dracula” played a little too much on the fear of the foreigner. He is a charming but essentially ugly man. Schrek’s Nosferatu is a creature that is barely human. Lee clearly wants more than blood. He wants body and soul.
Going over the plot and its variations of traditional themes is a complete waste of time. If you don’t know the Dracula story by now, you never will. As for the variations, surely they are what will make the story interesting for you.
The glory didn’t last. The script of the sequel “Dracula Prince of Darkness” was so pathetic that Lee didn’t want to say his lines. Thanks to some startling misuse of Christian iconography and a reinvigorated performance from Lee, “Dracula has risen from the Grave” at least passes muster as a sequel but it’s a downward spiral from there.
Perhaps, “Horror of Dracula” is little more than a curiosity these days but the curious will be rewarded.
| 83 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
Horror Of Dracula is a great example of the studios work and more importantly and interesting telling of the tale.
Comment by Bob Short