Drakula Istanbul'da

Atrocious picture quality made this one nearly unwatchable, with innumerable breaks in the film, some scenes are blown out almost completely white, (unintentional?) double exposures, and even visible fingerprints.

This is another fairy faithful adaptation of Bram Stoker's original novel, but inept on all other departments, from bland acting, to its depiction of Dracula as nothing more than a bald old man, to uninspired directing, and no budget sets, which really look like someone's redressed cellar. The film looks nearly comical, like a (lame) William Castle flick.

Perhaps I'll give this a second chance, if I can ever locate a better copy of it, otherwise, I would have a difficult time recommending this to even the biggest fan of Dracula, even Pakistani Dracula was an improvement.

'Dracula in Istanbul' deserves credit for an honest title, at least. This Turkish-made film sticks fairly close to the original plot of Bram Stoker's novel (greatly simplified), apart from moving the action to Istanbul in the present day (1953), presumably as a budget-saving device and in order to make the film more 'relevant' to its target audience ... much as the Hollywood version of H.G. Wells's 'War of the Worlds' moved the action to modern Los Angeles.

Dracula is played here by Atif Kaptan, who was apparently (I'm told) a horror-film veteran in Turkey, somewhat equivalent to Peter Cushing. He plays Count Dracula in impeccable (modern) formal dress: white tie and tails. He is also completely clean-shaven and slap-headed, looking vaguely like a cross between Max Schreck in 'Nosferatu' and Kojak.

The English characters in Stoker's novel are Turkish here, with appropriate name changes. The most significant change in the storyline is the conversion of demure ingenue Mina Seward into a fleshly cabaret dancer named Guzin, erotically depicted by Annie Ball. She gives an intriguing performance, turning me on more than somewhat, but this alteration weakens the story. Much of the horror in Stoker's novel comes from the contrast between the virginal Mina and the profane unholy nature of the undead. In this Turkish film, the Mina character Guzin is already depicted as a 'bad' girl, so somehow it doesn't seem quite so shocking when Dracula threatens to recruit her into the undead's legions.

This film was made on a laughably low budget, only a bare notch above the Ed Wood level. Yet the lighting and photography impressed me, and the Turkish locations are very interesting. I wish I could say I was impressed with the actors' performances: perhaps Turkish cinema audiences actually prefer a more stylised acting technique than I'm accustomed to viewing. I'll rate this Turkish delight 4 points out of 10.

A Turkish version of the Dracula story. How absurd and obscure this sounds. But truth is, I was really digging the movie for its first 15 minutes or so. Unfortuntaly after that the movie very rapidly started to become incredible bad and lackluster.

It was very obvious to me, that the film-makers had carefully watched the 1931 movie "Dracula", directed by Tod Browning and starring Bela Lugosi. It's not only a scene-by-scene remake at times but the movie even tries to look exactly like a 1931 movie. I'm still in doubt whether or not this had to do with financial issues or if it was an artistic choice but either way, I was really liking this. It give the movie a truly great atmosphere and I actually liked it that this was a 1953 movie, trying to be like an '30's movie, with its look and overall style.

But somehow, something went terribly wrong with its story. For some reason it is starting to take its own approach and seems to be making up its own story, as the movie goes along. Problem with this is, it just really isn't anything interesting or exciting to follow. The movie gets really lackluster after its fine start, which was a bitter disappointment.

Almost the entire middle part of the movie is more than enough reason to skip on this movie. It's incredibly poorly done, without any excitement or imagination and the movie also really starts to drag at this point, which will totally make you loose interest in it.

Quality wise this also really isn't the best movie. The sound at times is simply missing and the editing has some awkward cuts in it at times. It all makes it obvious what an incredible cheap production this must have been to make and also makes it obvious that most people involved really had no real idea what they were doing.

It's still not a completely horrible movie. I mean, if you are really into Dracula or vampires in general and want to see a fresh and unusual take on the story, done by a totally different culture (there are no crosses in this movie for instance because it's an Islamic movie), this movie is still worth checking out.

5/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

I first heard about this (and became sufficiently intrigued by it) over the Internet; it is virtually the only vintage Turkish film to be given reasonable exposure in recent years, apart from the Genghis Khan reworking KIZIL TUG (1952), which I also own but have yet to watch.

This, then, joins the ranks of other foreign-language adaptations of the Bram Stoker horror classic – such as the two German NOSFERATUs (1922 and 1979); two from Spain i.e. Dracula (1931; albeit filmed concurrently with the quintessential Hollywood rendition on the very same sets!) and COUNT Dracula (1969; its director, Jess Franco, even made an updated distaff version in VAMPYROS LESBOS [1970]) and the Pakistani THE LIVING CORPSE (1967; which is actually just as obscure and which it most resembles in the long run, not least in the numerous musical interludes). Unfortunately, the copy I viewed was in very bad shape (which perhaps enhanced the expected pervasive mood of dread and inherent strangeness): an exceedingly dark and splicy print, marred even further by combing issues and subtitles that went out-of-synch for considerable stretches!

While the obvious model for this one was the Bela Lugosi milestone (down to refraining from showing the vampire's ultimate come-uppance…but, then, the camera focuses squarely on the heroine's shapely figure while she changes into 'something more comfortable' soon after!), it proved most interesting in what differed from the usual blood-sucking fare. As for Dracula himself, he is atypically played by a bald-headed fellow (albeit resembling Brian Eno much more than the Max Schreck of the original NOSFERATU!) whose role, once the scene shifts from Romania to Turkey, is so severely diminished that he virtually becomes a supporting character in his own 'star vehicle'(!!) – for the record, he can disappear and manifest himself at will, as well as take any animal form he wishes (though, understandably, we are only ever shown one very brief bat mutation throughout) via a simple flashing of the cape over his face…which, at the end, results in unintentional hilarity, when he loses the emblematic garment and is thus forced to literally run for his life (incidentally, here we also have the very first depiction of the famous moment in Stoker's tale where the Count is seen scaling his castle walls, not to mention an off-screen reference to the equally renowned baby-feeding scene)!

To get back to what is novel here vis-a'-vis the source material and the myriad movie versions before and after: Dracula's properties in Istanbul are amusingly referred to as "kiosks"; the Count's hunchbacked servant back home eventually turns on him, and pays with his life, in an effort to protect the victimized hero (which is not even appreciated by the latter!); most hilariously, the vampire is warded off not by the traditional cross but rather mere garlic (lots of 'em!)…but, then, characters are made to freely bestow blessings upon one another (perhaps a requisite of the country's religion?)!; the 'Mina' counterpart is a blonde "Follies" dancer (the girl is forever excusing herself to perform for some Red Cross benefit activity!), and she is even made to give a private show, under hypnosis, for Count Dracula!!; another unusual setting is the sea-side one reserved for the 'Lucy' substitute's initial attack (later on, however, it takes her boyfriend and the obligatory elderly vampire-hunter three separate visits to her crypt in order to ascertain the girl's return from the dead!).

Given the number of classic films that were inspired by Stoker's original over the years, it is unlikely that this particular version will ever be included in that pantheon – but it is certainly enjoyable along the way and weird enough to withstand more than a cursory viewing from horror aficionados.

Despite the relocation and the update to a contemporary setting (cars and neon signs are seen), Dracula IN ISTANBUL seems to be a fairly faithful retelling of the famous Bram Stoker story, albeit with the addition of a few new characters - namely a creepy hunchbacked servant who appears to be based on the Renfield character. Horror fans are familiar with Universal's Dracula (and, to a lesser degree, the Spanish version filmed at night on its sets) and the sequels that followed, and then Hammer's Dracula in 1958. But Dracula IN ISTANBUL is a film which seems to have slipped from public scrutiny, like most Turkish movies, and can only now be evaluated in an international, Internet-using world.

The movie has a stagy feel to it, due to the fact that it was basically the first genre movie ever made in Turkey at the time and the budget meant the movie was set-bound at all stages. However, the settings and occasional matte shots of a spooky castle are more than enough to give the movie an appropriate and authentic feel to it. The contemporary setting is a bit jarring at first but makes for some fun changes. For instance, the fragile Mina in the book - the main thrust of Dracula's attractions - here becomes a nightclub dancer played by Euro-beauty Annie Ball (I love the bathtub scene in which the camera shyly zooms into her legs at an appropriate moment). The acting appears stilted at times but is adequate for the production, with kudos going to Atif Kaptan who makes for an eerie, alien-looking Dracula. The extreme close-ups of Drac's madly staring eyes are a highly effective portrait of evil.

Speaking of eerie, horror-wise the movie succeeds in working up a few gentle chills, as is the norm for movies made in that period and watched in today's light. Favourite scenes include a hollow-eyed painting from which smoke weirdly billows, a graveyard exhumation, and a midnight walk through a creepy wood (day-for-night filming always looks better in black and white). The music is appropriate and helps to contribute to the atmosphere of the piece. My only complaint is that the lighting is far too dark in some sequences, and combined with the typically poor quality of Turkish movies in today's world, some bits are impossible to fathom.

The special effects used are simplistic in the extreme, with simple tricks like levitating coffin lids, offscreen howls, jump-cuts to make Dracula seem like he appears from nowhere, and fog billowing on to the screen (allegedly the result of a number of crew members frantically smoking just offscreen due to there being no budget for a dry ice machine!). The fact that Dracula has fangs here and walks down the outside of his castle wall, as per Stoker's novel, is a fine touch. This isn't brilliant by any means - it's badly dated and there are one-too-many nightclub dancing interludes. However there are enough elements to make this of interest to intrepid genre buffs and a minor classic of Turkish fantasy cinema.