Day 13: DRACULA: DEAD & LOVING IT (1995)

The poster art and timing would leave one to believe this is a spoof of Coppola's Dracula film. However, aside from a few easy marks (e.g. the hair & the shadow descending the staircase shot), in most respects this is based off of the 1931 version in the same manner that Mel Brooks' earlier skewering of Frankenstein was a spoof of the Universal classics. That being said, knowledge of basic Dracula lore is sufficient to enjoy this film. Indeed, this film does not reward familiarity with the source material in the same way that the superior YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN (1974) does.

I am somewhat torn on that subject. I think its hugely unfair to measure this film against early Brooks (the above named film, GET SMART, BLAZING SADDLES, et cetera). That's not to say that one should not consider his directorial efforts as whole, an approach which is entirely warranted in most cases. The problem is that so much of his early work receives praise which makes later films hard to compare against. After viewing this film, I came to the conclusion that it would be held in much higher esteem if: 1) YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN did not exist and 2) it was not simply another Leslie Nielson spoof.

I will approach the latter reservation first. Leslie Nielson is a fine comic talent, no disputing that. His pratfalls and reaction shots reach the pinnacle of the form. To my mind, however, his presence here detracted from the overall product because he plays it how he always does, rather than a performance tailored specifically to Dracula. Bela Lugosi, Christopher Lee and Gary Oldman are all ripe for parody; Nielson takes on the Hungarian accent and leaves it at that.

Now, to the former reservation. There is no doubt that this film is inferior to YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN. Nielson, as noted, cannot match Peter Boyle interpreting Boris Karloff. Neither can Peter MacNichol as Renfield match Gene Wilder nor Amy Yasbeck match Terri Garr. We can continue in this vein as we scroll down the credits, but you certainly get the point. There is comedic talent on display here but not, you know, comedic talent. I could chalk that one up to preference but I doubt there would be serious dispute on which film has the heavy hitters.

Continuing on this point, what disappointed me most was that Brooks here failed to shoot the film in black & white. Every time an establishing shot popped up in the familiar palette only to go to television-grade cinematography, my hopes were dashed. Was he trying to avoid the inevitable comparisons to YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN? Because they were inevitable, really, if that was the purpose then it was for nought. It would have given the proceedings a dose of authenticity to play against the silliness of the plot, enriching the overall product. (See also: the washed out color palette of BLAZING SADDLES, mirroring classic Westerns.) Not only was opportunity missed by shooting in color, he also opted against using a lot of deep blacks and low light, which would have at least brought to mind other vampire movies. As it remains, it looks indistinguishable from how one would approach a romantic comedy or any other genre devoid of noticeable atmospherics.

Sadly, there is little to discuss in terms of the sexuality inherent in the Dracula myth as presented in this film. Mina Harker vamps it up to the chagrin of her reserved English fiancee after having been bit, which is a funny scene. Of course, Terri Garr did the same thing, better, after experiencing the monster's, ahem, monster in YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN. (Come to think of it, so did Madeleine Kahn in BLAZING SADDLES.) The oversexed female is a go-to comedic concept for the director, and for pretty much everyone else. But, hey, the film still made a better effort to explore the subject than Hammer Films!

So, even though I made a noble effort to compartmentalize this film from Brooks' earlier, superior efforts I was still a bit disappointed. Not to say this is an unfunny experience, by no means. It is definitely worth viewing for some inspired gags--more than you would find in any spoof film in the past two and a half decades or so.

OVERALL: **/5 in the Mel Brooks canon but ***/5 when measured against spoof films in general.

* * *

Well, this is going to be my last Dracula-related review for now, which is bittersweet. On one hand, I do get some nice symmetry by starting with DRACULA (1931) and ending with its spoof. On the other hand, I would have liked to hit on other important films, such as NOSFERATU (1922) and BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA (1992), as well as a couple of the later Universal films. Further, in the larger scope, its impossible to advance my thesis on the eroticism of the vampire myth using this film. Perhaps I'll return to the subject later.

For now, however, I'll be moving on to a series on on Frankenstein. Tentatively, the lineup is as follows:

FRANKENSTEIN (1931)
BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935)
EDWARD SCISSORHANDS (1990)
FRANKENWEENIE (1984) (short film)
YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN (1974)

You might spot some parallels between that list and the choice for the Dracula series. To my knowledge, Hammer never attempted a Frankenstein film; if I am in error on that fact, I will attempt to locate that film. I may also add Kenneth Branagh's MARY SHELLY'S FRANKENSTEIN (1994), which I have never seen. Look for that in the remaining days of October.