Continuing from my comments from yesterday's blog post on Francis Ford Coppola's adaptation of the Count, I think what makes the ideal Dracula film is purely subjective. My notion of what the ideal adaptation of Dracula may not be yours. I'm not a professional film critic and I would never pretend to be. What I write in my blog is my opinion and not a review.
My preferences tend to lean towards Christopher Lee's portrayal as the Count. And to be honest as much as I like his Hammer series it's his performance in Jess Franco's film I like the most. The film itself isn't an entirely perfect adaptation. The budget is very low and the film itself can be very plodding in spots. Not to mention both actresses playing Mina and Lucy look like soft-core porn actresses.
Which apparently they were.
However, Christopher Lee shines in the film. His monologue about his heritage to Jonathan Harker at Castle Dracula is one of my favorite moments in the films.
I also happen to like both versions of Nosferatu. Again, the biggest problem someone watching the 1979 version may find is how slow the film is. And it really has more of the feeling of an art film rather than a genuine horror film.
However, there are some genuinely creepy moments in the film just for how bizarre they are. My favorite is when Lucy (who takes the place of Mina in this film) is walking among all the plague victims who are either dancing around or left for dead in caskets.
The scene is how I imagine a Hieronymus Bosch painting would be filmed.
So as you can see, there is really no ideal version of Dracula because they all have their flaws. But still, it doesn't make them bad films. All adaptations have their flaws because we have our own opinions of how the character and the story should be handled. It's just what we do.
But as for what makes an adaptation of Dracula. Like I mentioned yesterday, I feel there should be a mystery to where the character is from. I think it takes something away from how truly frightening the character is by adding a "human element" to him.
And I think having the character be in love with Mina because she's believed to be the reincarnation of his long-lost love doesn't work for me either. In the original tale Mina despises Dracula because he represents all that she fears.
I'm not so bothered with interpreting the drinking of blood with sex or at least the inference of sexual arousal.
But I do think humanizing Dracula by giving him these longing or giving him a human origin is a mistake. What made Lugosi, Lee Schreck and Kinski's performances great is the fact that you have no idea where he came from. He could have been born in the pits of hell for all we know. Inhuman, immortal, merciless, ominous and the embodiment of evil is what makes a great Dracula for me.
What I wouldn't mind seeing at some point is an adaptation that utilizes both the look from Max Schreck's ratlike portrayal of the character perhaps early in the story at Castle Dracula and then have the character look more like Béla Lugosi and Christopher Lee later on as he becomes younger from the blood of his victims.
I suppose just as long as they don't "Twilight" the story of Dracula from what I have heard from a few sources.
Because that would truly be horrific!!
2 comments:
love Christopher Lee - has a certain refined malevolence about him
and i remember very well the feel one used to get with the old horror movies because of the pacing
seems plodding by today's standards, but i think there's something to be said for taking things slow
one has time to soak in the atmosphere and mannerisms of all the characters
I completely agree Paul. It was something my film class just couldn't appreciate. Especially showing them Lugosi's Dracula. Most of them complained that it was too slow and my suggestion that not showing the violence wasn't scarier.
Then again, this was the same class that thought Pee-Wee's Big Adventure was the worst film ever made.
Post a Comment