Dracula (1958)
[Reader disclaimer: there will be spoilers discussed.
Is it niche? Is it new? Absolutely not. But it is iconic and, if you haven't seen Terence Fisher's Dracula (1958), then you are most certainly missing out.
Admittedly, whilst watching, I can tell that the set design and props have aged rather badly. That's through no fault of the film: after all, it was made in the late 50s. However, it did remove me from the atmosphere a little bit, seeing as characters would bang on doors that would consequently fold like paper. The costume design was also curious, in that some characters didn't match the era that the narrative was set in (somewhere in the mid-1800s).
The thing that makes this film, the thing that elevates it to its current, legendary status, is undoubtedly the late Sir Christopher Lee. I cannot begin to explain how fantastic I found his performance in this film: his eyes, his demeanour, his movements were electrifying and intimidating, and what little dialogue he had was brilliantly sinister. Lee was made for this role, and it still translates to this day.
I must confess that I was surprised by how much I'd also enjoy the performances of the other actors. I have a lot of respect and admiration for Peter Cushing and Michael Gough, both of which featured prominently in my childhood, but I assumed would be overshadowed by Lee. Instead, I found their characters to be entertaining, albeit a tad overly dramatic at times.
Their roles in the narrative are simplistic, the plot itself being a cookie-cutter version of any folklore; there is a great evil which must be vanquished at all costs. Despite the story's transparency, it remains iconic and pays homage nicely to the original source material.
That being said, there are problems, and that's to be expected of a film that is now 60 years old and counting. For one, it makes no sense to me that Van Helsing would withhold information about Dracula to the Holmwoods: at that point in the narrative, he knew Lucy (played by Carol Marsh) had been bitten by Dracula and that he would probably come back, however refrains from explaining this (and the origins of how Jonathan Harker died) to the family, which may well have prevented her death or at the very least given them notice of her vampirism.
It's also odd that a blood transfusion scene is included, considering its based in the 1800s. Back then, blood transfusion would have been rarely practised and shunned upon by medical establishments as something far too risky for a patient to endure. It was possible, yes, just not likely to occur in the time frame that it did.
Nit-picking aside, my greatest disappointment with this film was genuinely that there wasn't enough screen time for Christopher Lee. The first scene we see of him with his fangs out, his eyes bloodshot, his mouth dripping with blood, will forever live on as one of the most recognisable yet frightening shots in cinema.
When I finished the film and realised that he barely featured in it, with the exception of his encounter with Jonathan Harker at the start of the film, I was left unsatisfied and craving more. I'm aware there are sequels following the success of Dracula, but Lee stated in his autobiography that in the sequels he was given even less to work with, so far as to not having lines at all: though disappointing, and I'll assume frustrating for the actor, the films were still a commercial success.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this film, despite how much it has aged. It's considered one of the most iconic horrors in history and I can definitely see why. If you still haven't watched it, I'd tell you to, if only for the cultural significance it holds and to be witness to what I consider to be one of the best performances in a horror film to date.
If you liked this film, I'd also recommend the following:
- The Curse of Frankenstein (1957)
- Blood Feast (1963)
- The Gorgon (1964)
- The Reptile (1966)
- Twins of Evil (1971)
Overall rating: 8/10
- K
No comments:
Post a Comment