Drakula Istanbul'da

'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.

Based on an abridged version of Stoker's novel, "Dracula In Istanbul" remains one of the best foreign adaptations of the famous tale. Essentially "Dracula" with a Turkish twist, the film is notable for being the first proper horror film to come out of Turkey.

The film has it's place in horror history because it contains sequences that were absent both in the Universal classic as well as in the Hammer horrors that would begin in 1958. This was the first adaptation to show Dracula scaling down his castle walls and the first to contain the controversial sequence in which Dracula feeds a newborn baby to his female companion (a scene present in the Pakistani "Zinda Laash" as well).

The influence doesn't end there. This movie was also one of the first to show Dracula's canine fangs - a feature completely ignored in previous versions - and it can be partly credited for the craze of vampire films in the 50's. Not bad for a film that did not even get a mainstream cinema release.

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/

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.

Over the years, I have seen several incredibly campy Turkish films from the 1970s and 80s, such as knockoff versions of "Star Wars" and "Captain America". However, I've never seen an older Turkish film until I stumbled upon this version of "Dracula" (1953) floating about on YouTube. It does have subtitles but in some ways is much better than the newer films I've seen. Yes, the production values are at times very bad....but the acting is pretty good and the film does provide a few frights...and it's not as campy as the other films I mentioned. Now I am not saying it's good....but at least it's not terrible.

The story is generally that which you'll see in other Dracula stories with only a few major exceptions. It's set in contemporary times and instead of Dracula buying a manor in England, this one decides to move to Istanbul--which makes a lot of sense considering there aren't that many crucifixes there to dissuade him (you see none in the film)! As for Drac himself, he's a weird looking one with teeth that go out at 45 degree angles--which makes you wonder HOW his bite can penetrate ANYTHING!! Predictably, when Drac begins sucking Sadan dry, her family bring in a Van Helsing-like old bearded guy to help them put a stop to all this.

A few things to note. First, although this was filmed in a Muslim nation, it was at the time officially a secular state and seeing some of the women wearing very little still surprised me a bit. Second, the print on YouTube is in terrible condition and I have no idea how else to find this film with subtitles. Third, while the IMDb trivia section says the word 'vampire' does not appear in the film, it is in the English language subtitles and in many ways it stays very close to the original Bram Stoker novel.

Overall, not even close to being a must-see film. The camera-work is often sketchy (especially on closeups), the 'castle' is an obvious painting and the entire production looks pretty cheap.