I watched EVERY Dracula Movie so You Don't Have To

I'll start with an honest disclaimer, I didn't actually watch EVERY Dracula movie. But be assured that I watched plenty.

This is my very "partial, prejudiced, & ignorant" review of them all. The films are rated on a scale from 1 to 13, because, duh, vampires.

Nosferatu
1922


A German "adaptation" in which Dracula is played by Max Schreck. There was a pretty public copyright infringement lawsuit against the film back in the day and all the copies were supposed to have been destroyed. But they were not; so we get to enjoy this gem.

I have to say, I honestly and truly enjoyed this film more than any of the other ones. First, Dracula or, rather, Nosferatu is appropriately terrifying. There is none of that gentlemanly horror that came later. Nosferatu is a monster. The cinematography and the score do a lot to evoke an eerie and uncomfortable atmosphere. And Schreck's makeup and body language create a pretty bizarre and unnerving creature, that still mostly reads as human, if only just.   

The story also deviates from the novel, with the characters, locations and some of the themes being pretty different. However, unlike some of the later films, this one seems to have the most coherent story in terms of themes. Nosferatu comes to represent illness that spreads rapidly through a small community. To the audience in the 1920s, many of whom would have remembered the Spanish flu outbreak, this particular type of horror would have been vividly real.

For those not very used to old silent films, the slow pace and the over-the-top acting (which is just miming, when all is said and done) may feel a bit tedious. But considering that the film is almost a hundred years old, it definitely remains one of the most compelling versions of Dracula, if not a very faithful adaptation.

Should you see it? Yes, definitely, yes!

Score: 10/13   

Dracula 
1931

Oh boy! I really wanted to love this movie, I really did. Bela Lugosi as Dracula is so iconic that to speak against this movie almost feels like sacrilege. But speak against it I must. It's just not a very good movie. I have seen a few of the early horror classics, and, to be honest, the pacing in them is usually tedious at best. The story in Dracula is just clunky, as it moves from scene to scene with all the grace of a derailed locomotive.

The characters' stories are shuffled about to create a hodgepodge narrative that is pretty difficult to follow unless you are very familiar with the source material. Our breading pair, John Harker and Mina, are terribly bland. In fact, it's not Harker's, but rather Renfield's visit to Dracula's castle that sets the plot in motion. As a consequence, it feels very much like it's Renfield's story - he is the one who first encounters the Count's murderous blood lust, he is the one who is corrupted, and he is the one who has the most compelling character arc. And Dwight Frye, who plays Renfield, is phenomenal!

Bela Lugosi's Dracula is yet another reason that this film must be watched despite nonsensical plot and forgettable characters. He is both suave and frighting by turns. Truly a midpoint between the monstrous Nosferatu and Coppola's sexy-sexy Dracula. Every time he is on screen you forget about everything else. 

This film has no score, which is both a boon and a drawback. The background noise, comprised of creaking and silences, creates a haunting atmosphere. And the set pieces are spectacular. Every scene in Dracula's castle is a macabre delight.

Should you see it? It's worth a watch, but only becasue Lugosi is so mesmerizing.

Score: 7/13

Dracula 
1958

This British adaptation is also known as the Horror of Dracula in the U.S. And it's pretty horrific. Christopher Lee plays Count Dracula as a sensual, aristocratic gentleman. The first time we see him ascend down a flight of stairs, there is not a hint of weirdness. He is sprightly, agile, and sexy. This film has definitely cemented the image of the Count as a lover, not a monster. It may be in line with the modern interpenetration of the character, but frankly all throughout the movie I kept longing for the ghoulish Nosferatu. Nothing against Christopher Lee, but I want a little more monstrous in my monsters.

The story is pretty nonsensical. Most of the time it seemed like some movie exec put a copy of Stoker's Dracula into a blender and then made a film out of what came out of it. Characters and plots were shuffled around in the weirdest possible way. Dracula's three brides (one of my favorite parts in every Dracula adaptation) was downgraded to just one bride; Lucy is Harker's faience, Mina is married to some rando, etc, etc. The only delightful character was Van Helsing played by Peter Cushing. He is a real action hero, who has more in common with the titular character of the 2004 Van Helsing, than the bookish professors that have come before. Let's just say there is a pretty cool showdown between him and Dracula at the end of the movie.             

Should you see it? Nah, you can live a happy, fulfilling life never seeing this movie.

Score: 4/13

Bram Stoker's Dracula

1992

Wow. Just, wow. This film was...interesting. This film has a lot of angst and sex in it. In fact, if I didn't know any better, I would have thought that it was a slash fiction of Dracula. All the scenes and dialogue lifted directly from the book are great, but the rest feels very much like fan fiction. And I don't mean to disparage slash or fanfic; both are awesome.

But credit where credit is due, Gary Oldman as Dracula is perfect. He is nightmarish and terrifying, yet strangely alluring. As I've said, I prefer my vampires as straight-up monsters, but Oldman's charisma is irresistible. That said, in this one, Dracula gets a very tragic and very unnecessary backstory.



I'm not sure whether this is done to humanize him or to explain his particular obsession with Mina, but I could have done without (SPOILER!) the reincarnated love storyline.

Still, this film is stunningly beautiful and mindbogglingly bizarre in all the right ways. Though I had to stifle a laugh at some character moments and some bits of dialogue, I was glued to the screen for its cinematography. The scenes in Dracula's castle are so wonderful, and the makeup in general is so well done that you really forget that this film is over 20 years old. Really makes your yearn for the days of practical effects when not everything was CGI.

A special shout out to the costume designer Eiko Ishioka. The costumes are spectacular. I would love to do a review of them here, but Frock Flicks have already done it and done it way better than I ever could hope to. So go over and check out their podcast. 

  

But though I loved the visuals, my opinion is that this film was not made for me. If you enjoy very intense and thematically confused "love" stories, this may be a bit more up your alley.

Should you see it? If you enjoy slash, definitely. If not, maybe. 

Score: 6/13

That's all from me for now. Stay tuned for my review of some ye old horror classics.                 

Carmilla - A Gothic Horror Reviewed

It is hardly news to anyone that we live in a vampire obsessed society. The Twilight saga is barely over and they are already talking about a reboot. Then there are The Vampire Diaries that have been renewed for season 4 and True Blood is about to start their 6th season. So where does this fascination with the undead creatures of the night that suck blood come from?

'Dracula!' you say.

Oh, no! There is a vampire novella that pre-dates Dracula by 25 years and can be credited for starting the lesbian vampire genre, which I am told is very popular.

Carmilla  from Gothic Classics: Graphic Classics Volume 14, by Lisa K. Weber 

Created by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu, an Irish Gothic writer, Carmilla was published in 1872 and tells a story of a beautiful young woman who becomes an object of desire and victim of a female vampire.   

~ ~ ~ Beware of Spoilers ~ ~ ~        

Illustration for Carmilla from The Dark Blue by D. H. Friston, 1872

Our innocent protagonist Luara lives a quite and retired life with her father in a castle in Styria (Austria), when a mysterious young woman named Carmilla comes to reside with them. Laura is both attracted and repulsed by her strange new friend and her sudden and violent outbursts of extreme sensibility. Things start getting particularly sinister when a wasting illness hits the peasant girls in a nearby village. Laura is also affected and becomes languid and slow, just like her bosom buddy Carmilla. But all mysteries are solved and the villain is vanquished when a friend of the family, General Spielsdorf, who had lost his beloved niece to a similar affliction, comes to visit the family.
 
Carmilla is a truly horrid novel. And if Catherine Morland of Northanger Abbey had been born a generation later, I am sure this would have been her absolute favorite. I cannot recommend it enough.The atmosphere is dark, heavy and spooky and vampire lore is a little different from what is considered canon today. The way the villain is defeated is particularly gruesome. And while our protagonist Laura is a little dull, Carmilla has plenty of layers.

 Funeral, illustration by Michael Fitzgerald for Carmilla in The Dark Blue, January 1872

Carmilla was by far the most engaging character in the novella. She appears to be sweet and innocent and is liked by everyone, but has inexplicable moments of rage. Her relationship with Laura is complex. On the one hand she is attracted to her and suffers from the knowledge that her passion will eventually kill her lover, but, at the same time, she almost revels in the knowledge that they are connected through love, death and blood. Carmilla is romantic and languishing, but also monstrous.

By the end of the story, Laura learns that vampires' desire for their victims resembles passionate love and that they often stalk their victims. Sounds familiar? I could not help but notice that the relationship between Edward and Bella from the Twilight saga closely resemble that of Carmilla and Laura. Both are very intense, stalker-like, obsessive and morbid.

Carmilla graphic novel, Gothic Classics: Graphic Classics Volume 14, illustrated by Lisa K. Weber 

Many people find fault with Twilight for supposedly making vampires less monstrous and more emotional, brooding and, yes, sparkly. But to be fair, the handsome vampire type has been around since Polidori's The Vampyre and vampires of Anne Rice can out-brood anyone. Carmilla also falls into the tortured and brooding vampire category. And while sparkling may seem a little silly, there is a lot of common vampire lore that is just as asinine. Why are vampires afraid of mirrors, for example, as they are in The Last Man on Earth? Or what's with all the garlic? A good portion of spaghetti bolognese could kill the most powerful of them.    

The Moth Diaries, a YA novel loosely based on Carmilla, adapted into a film in 2011  

Twilight is often criticized for portraying an abusive and dysfunctional relationship as romantic and attractive. But based on Carmilla's example we could argue that vampire stories have always glamorized dysfunctional relationships. While Le Fanu probably wrote the lesbian subtext to titillate and scandalize his 19th century audience, that is not what makes Carmilla's relationship with Laura problematic. Carmilla's  passion for her victim is all-consuming, selfish , dishonest and very abusive. After all, the end result of it will be Laura's death.


That is why Carmilla reminded me so much of Twilight. In both stories, the vampire has obsessive, possessive and intense feelings for the human character. The stories, however, end very differently. While in Carmilla the vampire is destroyed and Laura is free to live her life, though she never quite goes back to being herself, in Twilight the vampire 'wins' and turns his lady-love into a vampire.

The Vampire Lovers (1970) based on Carmilla with Ingrid Pitt and Madeline Smith

Considering that Carmilla is a story about a vampire and her lesbian lover, I am very much surprised that Hollywood has not tried to cash in on this gem of a story in recent years. There have been quite a few screen adaptations of the novella or inspired by it, but none of them seem to have been all that memorable.

For all you aspiring screenwriters out there, take note, a script based on Carmilla could be your big break!

For those who want to read the novella, it can be found on Wikisource or Gutenberg.

TV Crush: A Hazard of Hearts

A Hazard of Hearts is a guilty pleasure. It's so wonderfully ludicrous, over-saturated with every possible cliché and chock-full of such horrendous acting and dialogue that it's impossible not to love it. It's so bad, it's good.

This title card makes my heart bleed

A made-for-TV movie, this 1987 adaptation of Barbara Cartland's romance novel of the same name tells the story of Serena Staverley (played by young Helena Bonham-Carter), our plucky heroine, whose father (played by Christopher Plummer), a compulsive gambler, loses everything he owns, including Serena, in a game of cards to the diabolical Lord Harry Wrotham (Edward Fox), who in turn loses Serena to the dangerous and enigmatic Lord Justin Vulcan (Marcus Gilbert). The father promptly commits suicide and Lord Vulcan must marry Serena or at least take responsibility for her. He takes her to his family home, Mandrake, and puts her in the care of his scheming, overbearing and ambitious mother.

The story unfolds in the usual style of Gothic romance - there are hidden passages, mysterious rooms, family secrets, smugglers, highwaymen, duels, poisoning, kidnapping, attempted rape, a brooding hero and dastardly villains.

Hi, I'll be your plucky and cute ingenue for the duration of this film

Helena Bonham-Carter is adorable as the young ingenue. It's hard to believe that this actress, known for her gaunt looks, strange fashion choices and dark quirky roles, used to play sweet, round-cheeked spunky heroines.

I'm rich and handsome, and tortured, oh, so tortured 

Marcus Gilbert as the brooding Lord Justin, Marquess Vulcan is doing his best Darcy impression. Most of his lines are cheesy and the delivery is wooden. But he is rather easy on the eyes.

Even in 1820s the 80s refused to die 

Diana Rigg, best known for her role as Emma Peel of The Avengers, plays Lord Justin's mother. She mostly just goes around chewing the scenery and hitting every wicked step-mother cliché in the book.

I am so evil; I wish I had an evil mustache to twirl in an evil way 

But the lord and master of scenery chewing is Edward Fox, our main villain. He is one of those single-minded, evil characters that can only exist in really bad romance novels. Christopher Plummer as Serena's father is charming, but he disappears from the movie withing the first 10 minutes.

It's not easy having a good time 

The film is set during the late Regency period. If I had to guess, I would say the styles look like they are from the 1820s. The production values aren't very high and some costumes look cheap. The film suffers greatly from the 80s aesthetic and often looks very dated. Some of Lady Vulcan's costumes are not easy on the eyes and the amount of blush on her cheekbones is, frankly, alarming.

Judgmental is the new mauve 

As far as mindless entertainment goes, A Hazard of Hearts is pretty harmless. The plot is sufficiently silly and the main heroine is compelling. There are, however,some dubious moments and elements. First, there are no positive female characters except the heroine. All the other women, except her maid, are shown as Serena's rivals or adversaries. Even the unnamed wife of the highwayman who comes to Serena's rescue is claimed to be a brazen hussy. The men, on the other hand, except the main villain and possibly the smugglers, are universally good. They are all sympathetic towards Serena and try to help her.

The narrative about masculinity and what it means to be a real man is also slightly disturbing. Nicholas, Serena's cousin, is a pleasant and quiet young man, desperately in love with the haughty Lady Isabel Gillingham, who is after Lord Vulcan. She spends most of the film ignoring Nicholas or being mean to him. The rational thing to do would be to avoid her, instead Nicholas seems to follow her around and gets upset when he is overlooked or ignored. Finally, when Isabel delivers yet another taunt, he becomes violent, grabs her and smashes things. He ends this temper tantrum by forcibly kissing her. This is played  up for laughs and is meant to show that Nicholas is very masculine, indeed, and that now that he's been aggressive and abusive, Isabel will see what a catch he is. Mind you, this scene is preceded by an attempted rape of our heroine. It seems to suggest that violence is only bad when it's the villain abusing the heroine. When a good guy is violent, he is just being manly. But of course, one should not expect too much in the way of progressive gender dynamics from a film based on a novel written in 1949.

All in all, if you love historical romances or just want to be entertained for an hour and half, this is a great film to watch.

Watch A Hazard of Hearts on YouTube: