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.                 

Movie Review: EMMA. 2020

I went to see Emma (2020) today with a few friends. I will not lie - I loved it! And, so, naturally, I had to share my thoughts about this movie. Spoilers ahead!

Directed by Autumn de Wilde and written by Eleanor Catton, this sparkling period drama stars Anya Taylor-Joy as Emma Woodhouse and Johnny Flynn as Mr. Knightley. Everyone and their mother have said this already, but I shall add my voice to the chorus - the movie is visually stunning! The soft pastels, the warm lighting, and the floral motifs bring to mind a rococo pastoral painting.

The Love Latter, François Boucher, 1750 

via Universal

But they also put me in mind of works by Regency caricaturists such as James Gillray. This is not an accident, both the costume designer and the director took inspiration from satirical cartoons and fashion plates of the period(1). The result is a lush, saturated color palette, but also a wry and cheeky approach to the source material.   

Matrimonial-Harmonics, James Gillray, 1805 via Wikimedia Commons

The dialogue is mostly taken straight from the book and most of Austen's plot remains intact. A few things are cut here and there in the interest of time; a few things are added to keep with the tone and visual medium of the film. I quarrel with none of these. For the most part, I have no complaints about the changes made.   

I have heard that some people had expressed concern regarding certain posteriors that appear in the film. It is true, many of Jane Austen's adaptations up until now have been rather buttoned-up. But we must remember that behinds are very period appropriate. In fact, they show that de Wilde is clearly familiar with the visual culture of the time:

Comfort, Charles Williams, 1796 

The only thing I can find fault with is the pacing. The transitions from one scene to another are a little clunky at times. But individual scenes are invariably perfect. Autumn de Wilde is able to tell the story visually so well that I sometimes felt that there was no need for dialogue at all.

Emma (Anya Taylor-Joy) and Mr. Knightley (Johnny Flynn) via Universal 

Her talent in setting the scene and visual story telling is greatly assisted by a frankly astounding cast. Almost every single person seems like they were born to play this exact role. Anya Taylor-Joy, as the self-assured Emma is wonderful. Her face is incredibly expressive, which makes watching Emma's character as she unravels so much fun.

Johnny Flynn is by far my favorite Mr. Knightley. He brings a blend of manliness and softness that makes you fall in love with him over the course of the movie. I have heard some complain that Flynn is not old enough to play Knightley. He is 36 to Taylor-Joy's 23. In the book, Emma and Knightley are 21 and 37 respectively. In the new adaptation, Knightley may appear younger becasue he does not take the sanctimonious, dictatorial tone that other directors tended to ascribe to the character. He acts more in line with what a contemporary man of 36 would be like with a friend, rather than a father-figure of ye olden days. 

Mr. Woodhouse (Bill Nighy) via Universal  

Bill Nighy as Mr. Woodhouse is a delight. His hypochondria is still there, but it is off-set by a sprightly and energetic manner, which makes it so much more hilarious.

Mr and Mrs Elton, via Universal 

Miranda Hart as Miss Bates is the breakout star of the movie. She makes Miss Bates as annoying as humanly possible, yet when she is hurt, her pain is palpable. The Eltons are perfectly cast. Mr Elton (Josh O'Connor) is just as smarmy and simpering as you'd expect. Mrs Elton (Tanya Reynolds) is overbearing and over-trimmed. She is a great contrast to Emma, almost as a reminder that this is what Emma could have been if she did not have such a good head and heart.

Frank Churchill (Callum Turner) via IMDB

The rest of the cast is equally wonderful. The only two I would mention here is Amber Anderson as Jane Fairfax and Callum Turner as Frank Churchill. Anderson gets very little screen time as Jane, and since her character is rather reticent, little can be said about her. The only one who comes close to being miscast is Callum Turner as Frank Churchill. Turner does the character justice, but he just does not have much to work with. He also does not have the disarming charm of Ewan McGregor (who played Frank in 1996 Emma).       

Overall, I would say this is now my favorite adaptation of Emma (Clueless, naturally, notwithstanding). It feels modern and fresh, without any of it feeling forced. However, this may not be a version for everyone. If you come to this film looking for sentimentality, you will not find it. This is a broad comedy, a farce, where all the situations and characters are a little (or a lot) absurd. Fortunately, that is exactly how I like my Emma adaptions.   

This review is too long, so I defer gushing about the costumes to a latter date.

1. AUTUMN DE WILDE ON THE DREAMY, COLORFUL AND PERIOD-AUTHENTIC STYLE IN 'EMMA', Fashionista

How to Make Dorothy's Ruby Slippers

So you want to be dress up as Dorothy from Wizard of Oz? That's easy! All you need is a white blouse, a blue dress and Toto. But what about the ruby slippers? If sparkly shoes are not in this season, you can make a pair yourself with just a little patience and a lot of glitter.

The original ruby slippers made for Judy Garland in the Wizard of Oz (1939) were dyed red and then covered with organza, decorated with burgundy sequins, and then two bejeweled red leather bows were added.

The original ruby slippers via Smithsonian National Museum        

Since sewing sequin is pretty time consuming, simple glitter would do the trick. 

You will need:
- a pair of pumps or ballet flats (if they are red, that's a plus)
- loose glitter
- craft glue or Mod Podge
- glitter glue
- a few paint brushes you're not too attached to
- hairspray
- disposable cups
- a stiff red ribbon
- a glue gun
- scissors
- red rhinestones in different sizes
- needle and thread

STEP 1
Clear a working space for yourself and make sure to cover it with cooking parchment or some disposable paper. Glitter has a tendency to get everywhere. I made these shoes a week ago and there's still bits of glitter I find in my bedroom and on my balcony.

STEP 2
Fill one disposable cup with a bit of glue and the other one with loose glitter. I don't usually like to use anything disposable, but this method will help you avoid contaminating your glue with glitter and will let you collect any loose bits of glitter afterwards.

STEP 3
Using a paint brush, cover a section of your shoe with a thick layer of craft glue.Sprinkle loose glitter over that section. Shake it off. I have seen some tutorials where people mixed the glitter and the glue and then covered the shoe with the mixture, but it didn't work for me. The glitter got too lumpy and wouldn't spread.       

   
STEP 4
Repeat this process over the entire outer area on both shoes. Avoid the inside of the shoe (you don't want to feel glitter between your toes) and the heel. Leave to dry over night.

STEP 5
See if your shoes still need some coverage in places. Cover those sparsely glittered areas with more glue and glitter. Now with a paint brush cover the heels of the shoes with glitter glue. I prefer this to covering them with glitter as glitter glue gives a smoother shinier finish and you can avoid sending bits of glitter flying everywhere when you click your heels together. Leave to dry overnight.

STEP 6
Cover the entire outer area of the shoes with glitter glue. This will help keep any loose glitter in place. Give the heels another layer of glitter glue. Leave to dry.

STEP 7
In the meantime, make the bows. Cut your ribbons into two strips, approximately 6cm each. Using needle and thread make them into bows. With the glue gun, attach smaller rhinestones all over the bows. Aim for as much coverage as you can get gluing the rhinestones close to each other and making sure to put some in every nook and cranny. Attach a larger rhinestone to the middle of the bow with the glue gun.

I took these pictures after a full night of partying, so some of the rhinestones were lost on the dance floor 

STEP 8
Once the glue on your shoes is completely dry, give them a nice even spritz with the hair spray. I had a real problem with loose glitter, so I had to spray them four times before I was confident that I would not leave a glitter trail behind me as I walk.

STEP 9
Once your shoes are completely dry and no loose glitter is left behind when you shake them, attach the bows to the front of the shoes with the glue gun.

Now put on a pair of bobby socks and you're ready to follow the yellow brick road!   

Dracula's Daughter Review

"Thank you, I never drink... wine."
- Countess Marya Zaleska, Dracula's Daughter 

It's officially Halloween season! Which means I will be writing about all things ghoulish and frightful.  

There are some disagreements as to who is the most iconic mistress of darkness out there. Morticia Addams, Vampira, Elvira and Lily Munster are all fan favorites. But my heart belongs to Countess Marya Zaleska, Dracula's Daughter.

Source

Played by Gloria Holden in the 1936 Dracula's Daughter, she is equal parts mysterious, deadly and vulnerable. The film has it share of cheese and the human characters are somewhat on the bland side, but Countess Zaleska is mesmerizing.    

Source

Plot (with spoilers): Being a squeal, the film picks up from where Dracula (1931) left off. Countess Zaleska and her manservant Sandor steal Dracula's body and burn it. The Countess hopes that this would rid her of vampirism. But it does not work and she gives in to the blood lust. She meats Dr. Jeffrey Garth (Otto Kruger), a psychologist and one of Von Helsing's foremer pupils, and after a conversation with him becomes hopeful that he could help her overcome her urges through psychoanalysis. But when she encounters a beautiful model Lili (Nan Grey), she cannot resist and drinks her blood. Countess Zaleska gives up any hope of becoming human again and lures Dr. Garth to Transylvania. Her attempts to make him her undead companion fail and she is destroyed by her manservant. 

I think this film and the character are often, sadly, overlooked when people think of the Universal Studios monster line up. The film has very striking visuals and atmosphere. Its treatment of vampirism is also somewhat different from what we are used to today. The lust for blood is framed not as physiological need, but as a psychological affliction. There is no indication that Countess Zaleska needs to drink blood to survive. She drinks blood becasue she cannot help herself. And she expresses remorse and disgust at what she does. Consequently, the suggested cure is not a blood transfusion or any other antidote one could take, but rather psychoanalysis. Gloria Holden is superb as Countess Zaleska, equal parts poised, commanding and tragic. Her line delivery is always on point and she possess that magnetism that makes her dominate every scene.  

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

If you want to know more about the film and its production history, check out a wonderful three part article over at Women Write About Comics or see the film, which you can sometimes find on YouTube.   

Making the Star Dress Inspired by Hedy Lamarr

My theater group has had several photo shoots over the years. This year we wanted to do one based on tarot cards. I was very excited as I had a brilliant idea for an outfit. I decided I would do the Star, inspired by the glorious sparkling gown worn by Hedy Lamarr in Ziegfeld Girl (1941).

Source

There are several other star dresses in the film. The one worn by Lana Turner is not quite as spectacular in my opinion.

Source

And the one worn by Judy Garland is downright silly. That is a lot of tinsel!

Source

So I decided to create an approximation of Lamarr's gown and headdress. Though, I simplified a lot of it.

Source

I was lucky enough to find a white dress from a thrift store for 12 euros and then some light fabric that had already been decorated with small clusters of silver and gold stars. I also spent a small fortune on sequin and glitter glue. But the dress turned out very beautiful.

(I know it's hanging from a lamp, but I don't have a dress form so I had to make do. :) )

Since I had all these sequin and glitter, I decided to jazz up my fabric a bit and add some more stars in various sizes. Lamarr's dress seems to be decorated with sequin stars and then larger stars covered in sequin.

So I cut out a few smaller stars from Aida cloth and covered them with several layers of silver glitter glue. I then cut out paper stars and covered them with sequin using normal glue and glitter glue as adhesive. The effect was lovely, but it did take a lot of work.

The piece of poly fabric was attached to the gown around the collar and at the bodice. I miscalculated how much room my head would need, and ended up having to leave some fabric hanging loose in the back.

Originally I was going to sew on all the sequin onto the poly fabric but that was just taking too much time. So out came the glue and, miraculously, it held up rather well.

The headdress was made for me by my friend Lotta. She took a metal head band and attached wires to it. And to the wires she attached some stars cut out of silver paper and then covered with some silver glitter.

The makeup for this look is a mix of Lamarr's very 1940s look and my own desire to add glitter to everything.

Source

I couldn't get anyone to take a photo of me as I was trying out the makeup, and so the best I could manage was this rather artsy photo of myself in a mirror.

The glitter around my eyes and on my forehead did not show in the picture, which is a shame becasue it looked rather nice in real life. I also attached some sequin to my face with eyelash glue but in the end decided to remove them as they looked a little silly with the gown.

I will post pictures from the photo shoot as soon as they are ready.  

Film Review: Stage Door (1937)

I've been sick for the better part of the week. And when I'm sick, I like to watch a lot of movies. It was then very fortunate that I came across the delightful 1937 Stage Door on BBC iPlayer. Starring Katharine Hepburn and Ginger Rogers, the film tells the story of trials and successes of aspiring actresses who all live in a boarding house in New York City. It has it all - sparkling humor, biting wit, Ginger Rogers dancing, the glamour of the stage, the tragedy and poverty backstage, and, of course, the delectable late 1930s fashions.

Plot: Hepburn plays Terry Randall, a rich girl, who wants to see if she has what it takes to become an actress. She is determined, pragmatic and maybe just a little too entitled. All this doesn't sit too well with the other aspiring actresses at the Footlights Club boardinghouse where Terry lodges. She and her new roommate Jean Maitland (Rogers) develop an amusing love/hate relationship that leads to a lot of comedic moments. The other inhabitants of the boardinghouse are the shrewd Linda Shaw (Gail Patrick), the fragile and tragic Kay Hamilton (Andrea Leeds), and the endearingly goofy Judy Canfield (Lucille Ball). Terry gets a part in a new play, but acting turns out to be harder than she had thought. It takes a real tragedy to make her into an actress.

There is a lot of humor in the film, but there's also a lingering sense of doom over the young women in the house. Like All About Eve, one of my all-time favorite films, Stage Door may be glitzy and glamorous, but underneath all this there are some hard questions - will Terry's success last or will she be forgotten by the next season? Are the other girls going to find their big break or will they have to give up and marry? Will they live out the rest of their lives in obscurity and relative poverty?

One of the things I especially love about this film is that it centers on women, their lives and their goals. Unlike other movies about women that are really about men (yes, I'm looking at you The Women 1939), Stage Door does not try to hammer in the point that a woman's best role is that of wife and mother. In fact, marriage seems to be treated as failure and near tragedy, while men are obstacles, rather than heroic saviors. One of the more prominent male parts in the film is the smarmy producer Anthony Powell (Adolphe Menjou). He is as close as this film gets to a villain. Even though he is rather pompous and silly, his predatory behavior shows clearly what the women have to put up with to succeed in the theatrical world.  

Hepburn is delightful as Terry. She bring the dry wit and sophistication that this part really needs. Terry does come off as rather entitled and too posh at times. The scenes where she quarrels with the director and the writer of the play she had been cast in are truly cringe-worthy. But she learns her lesson in the end.

Rogers as Jean is fresh, bright and sparkling (sometimes literally). Her comedic timing is impeccable and she delivers some of the funniest lines in the film. But she also has her moments of gravitas as she contemplates her future and the future of the other girls in the boardinghouse.

Miss Luther (Constance Collier) is one of my favorite characters. She is played for laughs as an aging actress who is trying to become an acting coach and insists that the girls need theatrical training. The audience is meant to laugh at her, but she's not wrong. Terry's main problem is that she assumes that acting is somehow innate. The film makes a broader point that the tragedy of show business is that it's more about being liked by powerful men like Anthony Powell rather than having talent. But I'm still with Miss Luther on this one, those girls should at least know a little bit of Shakespeare.

Needless to say, the outfits in the film are wonderful. The costume designer was Muriel King.

The Battle of the Mink Coats. Jean and Linda are deliciously antagonistic.

I just love this polka dot romper. I really need to make this for myself.

This hat gets a lot of hate from the girls at the Footlights Club boardinghouse. But I think the outfit just screams chic Doctor Zhivago.

Oh, that hat! That purse! That coat! That...dress?  Oh, Jean, no!

A lot of the outfits in the film are more stylish day-to-day stuff rather than glamorous gowns. I love Jean's blouse and high waisted trousers combo, but Linda's dress with the half-turban and the sash are delightful in their pretentious sophistication.  

Judy's suit is really fun, but Jean, once again, wins me over with the blouse and high waisted skirt with suspenders. Also, ukulele.   

I'm just really partial to pajamas. Maybe it's becasue I live in a cold climate and therefore find pretty, impractical PJs to be the pinnacle of fashion. I really love Terry's dress, too.    

Here's a better picture of Terry's lovely dress. It's very no-nonsense, just like her, with just a touch of see-through chiffon to show that she has a soft, vulnerable side, too.

In the end, Stage Door is a wonderful movie that you can watch again and again. The acting is great and the dialogue feels authentic and honest. And it's all about girls doing it on their own.