Day 9: HORROR OF DRACULA (1958)

This seminal Hammer horror film--the description that accompanies the film from iTunes credits it with single-handedly reviving the genre, a historical fact I have no cause to dispute--hews closely to the Bram Stoker source material in some respects but departs from it in others. For one, Jonathon Harker travels to Dracula's castle knowing he is a vampire and seeking to destroy him rather than being the hapless real estate agent of the original, but this change does little to alter the course of events which follow. If anything, it is merely an early signifier that this is a horror film. In terms of my ongoing inquiry into the sexual undertones of the Dracula myth, however, it does little to advance the thesis.

Some erotic elements are present, if only barely. As Dracula bears down on Mina (or possibly Lucy, I got distractedly bored quite a few times while watching this film) some tender kisses on the cheek and neck preclude his savage bite. That's about it, to my memory. Nary a torn bodice in sight.

I am not entirely sure what this reserved stature is a function of specifically. It could be either: A) this is a British film or B) it relies too heavily on presenting a literal translation of the novel.

In support of Option A, let us be clear, it is very British. Exceedingly so. Christopher Lee as Dracula and Peter Cushing as Van Helsing practically re-invent the term "stiff upper lip" in their respective performances here. This heavily British approach to the material also reflects on the mildness of the horror elements to the story. As Dracula, Lee's upper crust Anglo demeanor is no match for Bela Legosi's Hungarian exoticism. Here, the Count is far likelier sneer at an unlucky street urchin than tear his jugular out. In fact, the first victim when he arrives in the city is indeed a street urchin.

In support of Option B, the film adheres to the Gothic novel aesthetic. For those of you who are aware of the term but lack specifics, allow me to explain what it meant originally, rather than its modern re-interpretation. First, take whichever Jane Austen or Bronte sisters novel you were assigned to read in high school. I am going to use Wuthering Heights for the sake of example. Now, remove all references to contemporary social mores and marital customs. Replace that text with explorations of, primarily, Germanic or Slavic folklore. Finally, give Heathcliff fangs/lycanthropy/consumption and a creepy old house. That is a Gothic novel, even if that is an extremely reductive description.

Not to be dismissive of Stoker's novel, of course. The problem resides in transmitting that form to the screen. Here and most elsewhere, the result is flat except in the hands of the most exceptional filmmakers (i.e. David Lean & Ang Lee). Long narrative passages about deep, unfulfilled longing make for great reading. Numerous close-ups of actors conveying that feeling by pursing their lips and half-closing their eyes not so much. Therefore, the horror or erotic subtext, in the most entertaining films, needs to be accentuated and brought to the surface. Tod Browning chose horror, Francis Ford Coppola chose to wallow in eroticism and dabble in horror.

It seems as if the director, Terence Fisher, chose very modest portions of both. I have already noted the minimal extent of the sexual elements in this film. The opening titles, which feature bright red rivulets of blood dripping onto Dracula's coffin, make a promise of horror to come which the story never actually fulfills. As the film proceeds, Dracula is not at all menacing. If anything, he's just kind of a dick. Although the final sequence where Van Helsing hunts the vampire is extended compared to the 1931 version, and as noted the Dracula hunting mission is telegraphed from the outset, it somehow manages to disappoint. There is no more tension here than in the dull thud of the climax to Browning's film.

Perhaps the later Hammer horror films featuring Lee, Cushing and Vincent Price are the classics which I have been promised. However, such an effort is not on display in this film. A middling entry into the Dracula canon at best.

OVERALL: 1 torn bodice & 1 tastefully undone bodice out of a possible 5 torn bodices.