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.

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: A Turkish Reimagining of the Gothic Classic

Despite being largely unknown to international audiences, even among Universal Pictures enthusiasts and horror aficionados, "Dracula in Istanbul" (1953) stands as a unique and fascinating adaptation of Bram Stoker's legendary Dracula. Based on Ali Riza Seyfi's 1928 Turkish novel "Kazikli Voyvoda" (Vlad the Impaler), which itself was a localized retelling of Stoker's classic, the film largely follows the same plot, albeit with some notable changes, such as the characters' names and the setting being shifted from London to Istanbul.

Despite its modest budget, "Dracula in Istanbul" showcases a surprising level of craftsmanship. Although the film suffers from excessive darkness (likely due to poor preservation of the original film stock), it effectively creates an atmospheric ambiance, a rare feat for Turkish films of that era.

The film's budgetary and technological constraints necessitated creative solutions, such as the crew smoking cigarettes around the camera to create a fog effect. While the acting is generally unremarkable (with some unintentionally humorous moments, particularly in the scene where Jonathan Harker/Azmi discovers Dracula's vampiric nature), Atif Kaptan's charismatic portrayal of Dracula and the film's technical ingenuity shine through. Despite some misfires, like the bat transformation scene involving a toy bat and a man in a bat costume, "Dracula in Istanbul" remains a well-crafted film by the standards of its time. While it doesn't offer a radically new take on the Dracula mythos, it remains an intriguing historical artifact.

Notably, "Dracula in Istanbul" is believed to be the first Dracula film to depict the Count with pronounced canine teeth, as well as one of the earliest depictions of the wall-climbing scene from Stoker's novel.

The film's obscurity in the wider world, particularly its lack of recognition from Universal Pictures and the horror community, is a regrettable oversight. Perhaps reaching out to Martin Scorsese's The Film Foundation could help bring this unique piece of cinematic history to a broader audience.

"Dracula in Istanbul" is a Turkish adaptation of a Turkish novel based on Stoker's Dracula. The book, initially published without permission from Stoker, was later re-released in 1997 with a foreword by Giovanni Scognamillo and eventually published in English as "Dracula in Istanbul: The Unauthorized Version of the Gothic Classic."

Among its notable firsts, "Dracula in Istanbul" is the first film to explicitly link Dracula to Vlad the Impaler, the first Dracula film made by Muslims, the first to depict Dracula with elongated fangs, the first to show Dracula crawling on walls like a lizard, and the first to incorporate eroticism into the story.

Despite its historical significance and innovative elements, "Dracula in Istanbul" is often overlooked and underappreciated. However, it remains a testament to the creativity and resourcefulness of Turkish filmmakers of the era and a valuable addition to the rich tapestry of Dracula adaptations.

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.

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/