Monsterpiece Theater: Sir Christopher Lee as Dracula

by Rustbelt

Few actors have such long and distinguished careers as the great Christopher Lee. He starred in everything from Olivier’s Shakespearean work to B-movie schlock to major franchises including Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. But he’ll always be known best for his horror career; particularly for his depiction of the undead Transylvanian Count.

These days, many actors become identified with a particular, trademark character: Clint Eastwood as ‘Dirty’ Harry Callahan; Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones; Humphrey Bogart as Rick Blaine; etc. However, there’s a critical difference that distinguishes Lee from all of these guys. All the characters I’ve just mentioned were original film creations. Count Dracula, on the other hand, is a literary figure who had already been successfully portrayed to mythic status by both Max Shreck and Bela Lugosi. Even today, 94 and 85 years later, their performances still hold up as standards. Yet, Lee was able to make his own mark and set new benchmarks and standards for how Bram Stoker’s ultimate villain must appear on screen.

Horror of Dracula (Hammer Films, 1958)

It’s Hammer Time! (Hey, you knew I was going to say it.) Founded in 1934, Hammer Film Productions had been ‘just another film company’ until the end of the 1950’s. The studio hadn’t found its niche yet. But that changed in 1957 with the release of The Curse of Frankenstein. I reviewed that film for Monsterpiece last year HERE. Although the script called for a pathetic version of the creature opposite Peter Cushing’s menacing Baron Frankenstein, Hammer execs liked what they saw and cast Lee as the lead in their next major feature, Horror of Dracula. What bears repeating is that Christopher Lee was hired to portray the mad scientist’s monster in Curse because he was willing to work for 2 pounds a day less pay (8 pounds) than the others -- two pounds made Christopher Lee an international star!

As is the case with most Hammer literary adaptations, Horror of Dracula takes MANY liberties with the source material. Jonathan Harker (John Van Eyssen) arrives at Castle Dracula in Klausenberg (still in Transylvania, though not in Borgo Pass), to take up a new post as Count Dracula’s librarian. Despite cordial appearances, he reveals to the audience that he is a vampire hunter sent by Van Helsing to kill Dracula. Although he manages to kill a female vampire (Valerie Gaunt), he fails in a showdown with the Count. None of that is in the book.

Not long after, Professor Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) arrives at the castle and finds Harker turned into a vampire. After staking Harker, he goes back to Karlstadt (Germany subs for Victorian London), to meet with Arthur Holmwood (Michael Gough) and his wife, Mina (Melissa Stribling). In this version, Harker was engaged to Lucy Holmwood, Arthur’s sister. Lucy is then attacked by Dracula because Dracula stole Harker’s picture of Lucy and Mina and is getting his revenge on all of them for the death of his bride at the castle. Lucy dies and Van Helsing gives Harker’s diary to the skeptical Holmwood. Together, the two encounter vampire Lucy in a graveyard and stake her.

Holmwood and Van Helsing then bribe an official in Ingstadt to learn the address in Karlstadt where Dracula’s coffin was taken -- it went to an undertaker. However, Dracula begins corrupting Mina and she helps him hide the coffin in her basement. When it’s discovered, the hunters chase Dracula back to Transylvania. Holmwood rescues Mina. Van Helsing corners the Count and rips open some drapes, killing Dracula with sunlight.

Dracula: Christopher Lee

Lee is neither a repulsive beast like Count Orlok in Nosferatu, or a reserved character like Lugosi’s interpretation. And despite having only 13 lines, all delivered before the film is ten minutes in, Lee is credited with adding three key ingredients to the Dracula mix. First, he had a genuine aristocratic presence. He feels like he could instantly command all attention just by walking into a room. Second, the rage came out. In the book, the sight of blood made Dracula reveal his bestial, violent hatred of humanity. Lee has that in spades, showing no mercy to anyone he’s trying to kill or who’s foolish enough to get in his way. And third, the sexual element now so closely associated with the vampire attack.

In this film, Lucy lies in bed waiting for Dracula. Mina also appears to Arthur and Van Helsing looking very satisfied after she’s attacked. Director Terrance Fisher told her to look like she’d just had the best sex of her life the previous night, all night long. The notion of vampiric sex - sex from the neck up - has been a part of the film version of the lore ever since. Of course, this isn’t safe sex, given what happens afterward (death and vampirism). But as scholar Sir Christopher Frayling put it, “you can’t have everything.”

As an aside, Lee took credit for none of this innovation. He said he was only doing what the script required and what Terrance Fisher told him to do on set.

A New Take On The Tale

Horror of Dracula has many Hammer trademarks. The film is awash in glorious color; it’s the first time we the Count with red eyes and his fangs dripping with blood. As noted, the filmmakers changed the story in several ways, but, as with other Hammer movies based on books, they made it work. (Though I still have a problem with Castle Dracula looking almost pristine, instead of the above-ground graveyard it’s supposed to be.) The film was also gory for its time, though it seems quite tame today. Interestingly, despite, the sexual element added to the tale, there’s a noticeable lack of female skin for a Hammer film. The film also pays interesting homage to both the novel and its Universal predecessor. As in the novel, modern (1890’s) technologies like a phonograph and blood transfusions are used by Van Helsing. And like the 1931 film, the cinematographer uses a tiny flick of light to illuminate Lee’s eyes; only this time before he bites Lucy.

As for the rest of the cast, Lee’s BFF Peter Cushing is tremendous as Van Helsing. Cushing feels natural in every move he makes and is completely believable. He is neither a desk-bound know-it-all or an obsessed maniac. He’s also more than willing to put himself in danger and push himself to his physical limits to stop Dracula.

We also need to note the addition of Arthur Holmwood. In the book, Arthur is Lucy’s fiancée. Here, he’s married to Mina and becomes Van Helsing’s right-hand man. Michael Gough is also great here. He has to be. Just like in the book, Dracula is only really an active character in Transylvania. After that, we mostly get just the characters’ reactions to the Count’s evil deeds. Gough is also believable as an early skeptic converted to a crusader who is terribly concerned with protecting Mina from Dracula. He perfectly compliments Cushing.

Like Cushing, Gough never got the credit he deserved. From the villain in Hammer’s Phantom of the Opera, to a harassed artist who strikes back against a bullying art critic (Lee) in Amicus’ Dr. Terror’s House of Horrors, Gough showed plenty of versatility before becoming just another British actor who appeared in every movie Tim Burton ever made.

The only low point in this film is Harker, who may be the worst vampire hunter ever. First, he notes that he must wait until dawn to kill Dracula. Of course, he heads out at night and gets attacked. Then, he finds the vault with the coffins and kills the female vampire as the sun sets, leaving Dracula to escape. And finally, what vampire hunter forgets his cross and garlic? Cushing’s Van Helsing is good on his own, but he needs to improve his hiring standards.

El Conde Drácula (Count Dracula) (Fénix Films, 1970)

Oh, I really don’t want to do this one, but I’m going to for comparison. You see, if there’s one thing Christopher Lee didn’t like about Hammer’s version of Dracula (other than being blinded by the contact lenses, that is), it was the deviation from the source material. Lee was a huge fan of Stoker’s book, and tried to work in some of the author’s classic lines. But Fisher would have none of it. And despite starring in six of the film’s eight Hammer sequels, Lee always longed to star in a faithful adaptation of the story. Well, in 1970, Lee got what he wanted- or so he thought. So, without further ado, I give you director Jess Franco’s take on Dracula.

Harker (Fred Williams) heads by train and carriage to Transylvania. He meets an elderly-looking Count Dracula. After a few wink-and-you’ll-miss-‘em abridged scenes from the novel, Harker goes mad, jumps out of the castle, and wakes up in a bed in a hospital in what we’re told is London- much like the title character in The Incredible Melting Man, who passes out in a spacecraft orbiting Saturn and wakes up in a NASA hospital on Earth shortly thereafter.

Harker’s fiancée, Mina (Maria Rohm), and her friend, Lucy (Soledad Miranda), meet him there. The next half hour or so is Dracula seducing Lucy, Renfield (Klaus Kinski) yelling and screaming, and asylum director Van Helsing (Herbert Lom) and Dr. Seward (Paul Mueller) musing about what might be happening. Lucy becomes a vampire and is staked. Dracula then sets his sights on Mina. After Van Helsing suffers a stroke, it’s up to Harker and Quincy Morris (Jack Taylor) to pursue Dracula back to Transylvania. They frighten the Count’s Gypsies with some rocks and then expose Dracula to sunlight. Fin.

I watched this movie for the review and, wow, was I bored. Can you tell? Now, it gets hard to keep reviewing a series of movies all based on the same story. But up until now, each film added something to the tale. Each kept me entertained. That wasn’t the case here. I don’t how I can list everything that went wrong with this one. For starters, it moves at a glacial pace. Everything is just slow. The setting is also all wrong. Barcelona is a beautiful, medieval city. But there’s no way it can substitute for Transylvania, much less Victorian London. And this being a Spanish production, everything just feels too Spanish - the buildings, the decorations, the costumes, the ladies (well, that may actually be a plus!)... And the sets are practically barren. Every room is a set of four blank, dull-painted walls with cheap furniture stolen from a high school swim team’s haunted house fundraiser. Wait, I take that back. That’s insulting to the very entertaining haunted houses we have around here in the Pittsburgh area at this time of year.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, the film started with an ominous omen. As an appetizer, I watched a Youtube clip of Harker and the Count meeting. Then, cuing in the “children of the night” quote, was a stock animal howl. I heard this sound before and it filled me with dread- the wrong kind of dread. For you see, dear article reader, the only other time I can remember hearing that sound effect was for the Master’s Pet in “Muh…Muh…Manos, the Hands of Fate!!!!!” What, you don’t believe me?! Okay, fast forward the clip in question to 5:52. Now, fast forward to 34:59 of the Mystery Science Theater 3000 version. I’ll pause while you do so. [pause] Thought I was kidding, didn’t you?

To make matters worse, this film was produced by Harry Alan Towers. Yes, the immortal producer of such classics as The Castle of Fu Manchu (“Wait. Christopher Lee was Chinese?”), and Outlaw of Gor (“Look, it’s Jack Palance!” “I’ve crapped bigger than this movie.”). Oh, the pain, the pain…

All right, all right, back to the review. Now, I did find three things that were actually good. The first was obvious:

Dracula: Christopher Lee

Lee isn’t awful this time around, though he isn’t memorable, either. With the exception of two scenes where he bites Lucy and just he hisses, he’s always stoic, brooding, and walking like Rod from Birdemic. (Yeah, I went there.) Still, his presence remains commanding. Also, in a nod to the book - the reason Lee agreed to this project in the first place - the Count gets younger as he drinks blood. Not handsome, mind you. Just younger. Nice touch. Overall, it actually feels reassuring when Lee’s onscreen - something you don’t feel very often in this film.

In an interesting casting twist, Klaus Kinski plays Renfield, a character noticeably absent from the Hammer version. Though he’s given only a few lines and mostly just shouts and screams, he’s completely believable as an insane man who goes crazy whenever Dracula is nearby. The part is small, but memorable. And, we’ll be seeing Herr Kinski a little further down the road.

One other note I want to make is the Lucy character. For the most part, Lucy is just portrayed as Dracula’s first meal in London who gets a sexual thrill out of being drained to death. Soledad Miranda certainly fulfills that part in her jaw-dropping scenes with Lee. (With her giraffe-sized neck, I can see why vampires would want her so badly.)

But it’s the difference between human Lucy and vampire Lucy I want to point out. As a human, Lucy is vulnerable, innocent, and easily dominated by Dracula. As a vampire, Lucy appears alabaster, with darkened eyes and wearing a black gown. She looks like a walking corpse. She also now easily commands children to come to her so she can feed. Like in the novel, it’s a complete inversion of her human self and a mockery of female beauty. Lucy represents the terror created by the corruption Dracula leaves behind in his wake. And so far, believe it or not, this movie, IMO, has done this part the best- especially when Miss Miranda bears her fangs.

Christopher Lee never seemed to resent being associated with Dracula. In fact, he kept open the possibility of playing the Count again. In a 1996 interview with BBC host Jonathan Ross, (for the documentary, “In Search of Dracula”), Lee said that he would play the part again, but only if the movie would be a faithful adaptation of the novel, which, Lee said, has never been properly filmed. Shame on you, Franco, Shame on you.

The Setting: “The Land Beyond the Forest”

Bram Stoker never visited Transylvania during his lifetime. Everything he knew came from travel guides (such as Emily Gerard’s The Land Beyond the Forest), and history books he read in the British Museum while doing research for his novel. In his hands, the land became a hotbed of monsters that preyed upon a peasant/merchant population. Dark forests surrounded fairy-tale towns while massive packs of wolves howled throughout the night. Locals took extreme precautions- including extensive used of garlic and crucifixes- to protect themselves from vampires and other vile creatures.

The name “Transylvania” translate roughly as “the land beyond the forest” in some versions of Latin. The name dates back to at least the early Middle Ages. But the land is much older than that. In the early first century B.C., the Kingdom of Dacia appeared on the scene. With the Carpathian Mountains to the east, and the Transylvanian Alps to the south, Dacia resisted Roman invasion for nearly two hundred years. It was finally conquered in 106 A.D. by Emperor Trajan. But after the start of the barbarian invasions the third century, the land was dominated by various tribes - including the Huns and Visigoths - before being taken over by the Kingdom of Hungary roughly in 11th century and being nominally run by the same for about 500 years. (There’s some dispute over this.) After briefly being taken over by the Ottomans, Transylvania was added to the Austrian (later Austro-Hungarian) Empire in 1683 after the Battle of Vienna. This arrangement lasted until 1919, when the territory was given as a ‘gift’ to Romania for joining the Allies during World War I.

Today, Transylvania isn’t much different from the rolling fields and mountains in countries like France or Germany. There are still, however, some isolated villages where belief in vampires continues to this day. Dracula was a banned book during Romania’s fascist and communist periods. Nowadays, there’s a love/hate relationship with Bram Stoker’s work. Towns featured in the novel like Bistrita (Bistritz), take advantage of the tourism it affords. Some places, like Bran Castle (above), have even been billed as the real Castle Dracula. On the flip side, the novel paints a demonic image of the land that some residents don’t care for. The book also, they claim, defiles one of Romania’s national heroes. But that’s a subject for the next article.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Bond-arama: No. 0015 The Man With The Golden Gun (1974)

Too high, right? You think The Man With The Golden Gun should be lower than No. 0015 of 0023? Honestly, that would have been my gut feeling too, until I started to think about the film and how it really compares. And in the end, this is where it belongs. Observe.

Plot Quality: The plot to Golden Gun stands out rather uniquely among the Bond films. The film begins with Bond being pulled off his mission to recover a stolen device that transforms sunlight into highly concentrated energy: the Solex agitator. He’s been removed from the mission because MI-6 has received a golden bullet with Bond’s 007 number on it. This golden bullet means that the mysterious Francisco Scaramanga (Christopher Lee), the world’s greatest assassin, intends to kill Bond. M suggests that Bond go into hiding. Bond instead decides to track Scaramanga down. This is perhaps one of the strongest ideas to power a Bond film as, for once, the story isn’t about Bond’s duty, it’s about Bond hunting a man to save his own life. This is Bond versus the anti-Bond, mano-a-mano.

As the story unfolds, Bond traces the golden bullet to Macau, where he sees Scaramanga’s mistress Andrea Anders (Maud Adams) collect the bullet. He tries to follow her, but is blocked by the agent sent to assist him, Mary Goodnight (Britt Ekland). Bond eventually makes contact with Andres and discovers that she sent the golden bullet to MI-6 because she wants Bond to kill Scaramanga. In exchange, she will give him the Solex MI-6 has been looking for. Bond agrees, but Scaramanga kills her before she can deliver. This begins a chase scene which eventually leads Bond to Scaramanga’s private island where he and Bond hunt each other in an elaborate funhouse Scaramanga has set up to practice his craft. Bond kills Scaramanga, rescues Goodnight, retrieves the Solex, and sails for home.

Honestly, the above is a top James Bond plot. You have a strong villain with extraordinary skill, unlike many of his predecessors who are merely rich. His motive is unique. This is a dark, visceral story of a contest to the death between the world’s two greatest hunters supported by a lean plot that makes sense throughout. You have a strong Bond girl who drives events, exotic settings and even the travelogue feel. These are things the lower-ranking films simply cannot boast, not with their bland or cartoonish villains, their nonsensical or pointless plots, and the indifference with which so many of them were approached. That’s why this film isn’t rated lower.

So why isn’t this film rated higher?

Well, therein lies the problem. For while the structure of this film is fantastic, the execution isn’t. In fact, the film kept undercutting itself. For example, whereas Live and Let Die was a blaxploitation film, this one borrows heavily from martial arts films, yet Moore feels out of place in that environment. This also led to the regrettable decision to have Bond let two young girls do his fighting for him in one scene... something which feels embarrassing; not to mention, the scene is ridiculous as these two small girls kick in the general direction of supposedly trained martial artists only to have them fall down unconscious from blows that would be unlikely even to slow a grown man.

This awful scene then leads directly to one of the worst moments in a James Bond film, as we are reintroduced to Sheriff J.W. Pepper (played by Bufford T. Justice Jar-Jar Binks Clifton James). Pepper is the fat, obnoxious, racist Southern cop from Live and Let Die. Here he’s playing the ugly American on vacation in Thailand as he complains about the “little people” in their “pajamas” and tells us loudly how he does it better in Louisiana. The portrayal is offensive and reeks of anti-Americanism – in fact, this is the third of three films written by Tom Mankiewicz, each of which contains whiffs of anti-Americanism.

The one good thing to come out of this painful scene was an incredible stunt where Bond jumps an AMC Hornet over a broken bridge while doing an aerial twist. The stunt is fantastic... but the filmmakers ruin it by mocking it with a slide-whistle noise.

I think the problem was this. As Lawrence Meyers noted at BH, each Bond film takes on a theme and runs that theme throughout. The theme here was a circus theme. Hence, Scaramanga’s story starts with him shooting an elephant trainer. He uses a mirrored funhouse as a hunting ground. The Solex is hidden in a bag of peanuts. Henchman Nick Nack (Hervé Villachaize) dresses more like a ring master than a servant. They use the Queen Elizabeth as a setting for MI-6, which is built at a diagonal angle. Etc. In effect, they took the absolutely worst possible theme, a comedic circus theme, and they interwove that with the strong, serious plotline discussed above. That’s why this film sits in the middle... its plot deserves to be near the top, but the stupidity from the circus-comedy they interwove with the plot deserves to be near the bottom. Essentially, this is two incompatible films rammed awkwardly together.

Bond Quality: This was Roger Moore’s second Bond film and already there were warning signs. In Live and Let Die, Moore played the role fairly seriously. In this film, the lounge lizard personality he would come to embody began to appear at times. He comes across as less physical and foppish; Moore apparently looks sufficiently strange running that they hired a stunt man to run for him. There are few fights and Bond even lets young girls do his fighting. He seems indifferent or standoffish to the women he encounters too. And he ultimately has a hard time showing that he believes what is happening to his character. This only gets worse from hereon out for him.

The Bond Girl: Maud Adams plays Scaramanga’s mistress. By all rights, she should be the Bond girl here, but she gets killed midway through the film. It is great that her character is the reason for the film, having tried to trick Bond into killing her lover, whom she fears, and being the driver of the stronger portion of the film. That said, like Moore, Adams is a cold fish and does not project emotion or urgency onto the screen. Still, she is adequate and her character is great. The other one is the problem.

The real Bond girl here is Britt Ekland as Mary Goodnight. She has been heavily criticized for this film, and deservedly so. She has zero sex appeal or chemistry with Bond. Her character has been described as “an astoundingly stupid blonde British agent.” She is constantly doing things that only happen in sitcoms, like locking herself into the trunk of a car or using her butt to accidentally start a laser. She inhabits the comedic portion of this film and everything about her and the character was the wrong choice.

Villain Quality: Finally, we come to the villain. In a vacuum, Scaramanga is one of the top villains the series has produced. Indeed, even critics who have panned the film have called him one of the best villains in the series. He’s Bond’s equal as an assassin; he has skills, which most of the others don’t. He’s cold blooded and ruthless, yet Christopher Lee also injects joy and likeability into him. He is compelling. He even has the strongest back stories of all the villains. His story begins with him killing a man who killed an elephant he cared for - this is something many people can sympathize with and makes him understandable. But from this, he finds he has a talent for killing and he decides to make use of it. Eventually, he becomes a KGB assassin, but then goes independent and is now considered the best in the world. This is real depth and compares very favorably to the dull misanthropic billionaires Bond usually fights.

He’s also one of the more complete villains. Many of the others seem to have no purpose in life except to plan some scheme and then wait to see if Bond stops them. Scaramanga is different. He’s going about his normal business as an assassin, having been contracted by billionaire industrialist Hai Fat. He has a relationship with Maud Adams. He seems to enjoy life. Bond doesn’t obsess him, which really makes him feel like a “whole character” who has an existence outside the plot.

His weak spots really are the comedic elements that are thrust upon him at times, though he largely inhabits the serious portions of the story. It also seems strange that he kills Hai Fat and takes over his business, as that contradicts his character. I also would have preferred it if he didn’t own a private island, but there seems to be no escaping that in this series at this time... at least it’s not crawling with jumpsuited henchmen! All told, he is a great villain.

What you have here is two films laying on top of each other. The film involving Scaramanga, Bond and Adams is a serious film with a fantastic plot, a solid Bond girl and a great villain, which deserves to be considered a top Bond film. The film involving the other characters is a lousy comedy that mocks the film and deserves to be ranked at the bottom of the Bond films. This combination makes the film much better than it deserves to be, but nowhere near what it should have been. And that is why this film is No. 0015 of 0023.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...