Iconic Monsters: Variations on the Classic Horror Icons (Dracula, Frankenstein, Werewolf etc,)

Since it 'tis the Season (of the Witch), I thought it apropos to post a new thread, designed for the discussion of Classic Horror Icons and all their variations through the decades -- and centuries!

The idea is to compare and contrast the different versions of a certain character or mythos. For example, take Boris Karloff's Frankenstein('s Monster) compared to Mary Shelly's original conception, contrasted with Robert deNiro's rendition, and Randy Quaid's fine performance, etc., and to offer our opinions on each.

(I prefer to include links to wiki or imdb entries on the different versions, and I request that you follow suit, as this makes for a much more enriching conversation.)

The Phantom, the Werewolf, Godzilla, Michael Myers, ad ultimatum: let's talk monster!

Since I've been watching a lot of Dracula films recently, and as this is something I've been doing since childhood, I feel fairly qualified to start the thread off with this most iconic -- and to me, fascinating -- of classic horror figures.

Stoker published his epistolary novel in 1897. In it, he combined the bestial "vampyr" of folk tale with the historical figure of Vlad the Impaler, and created a new kind of villain: an undead sorcerer and lycanthrope who has the resources and wealth of an old-world aristocrat and the powers of a demon. Stoker's conception was monstrous and ugly, with white hair and mustache, sunken features and clawed, hairy hands.

The 1922 silent film Nosferatu cleaves fairly close to the source novel, and was made by German director FW Murnau without the permission of Stoker's widow. Writer Henrik Galeen changes the locations and the names, and removes the Van Helsing character, but the plot is identical in most other respects. The film employs Stoker's monstrous image of the Count, though with a more rat-like visage than wolf- or bat-like: bald and bizarrely magnetic. His attire, however, is often noblemen's finery, creating a striking contrast between the character's hideous features and his rich wardrobe.

In the 1924 London stage play, adapted by Hamilton Deane, the character was refined (and reduced) to a Vaudevillian stage magician with silken tux and tie. This suave, clean-cut conception of the Count was carried over to the 1927 Broadway adaptation, written by John L. Balderston, which employed Bela Lugosi in the title role.

The 1931 movie starring Lugosi, and directed by Tod Browning, is a film version of the Broadway play by Deane & Balderston. Dracula is charming, silver-tongued, mesmerizing, richly dressed: an exceptional progression away from the horrid monster of the Stoker novel. This film was planned as a lush magnum opus to rival the sweeping epics of the silent era. Then the stock market crashed, and the budget was scaled back considerably.

The 1931 Spanish-language version, directed by George Melford on the same sets and at the same time as the more famous Lugosi/Browning version*, is generally considered to be a superior film to the Browning, with better cinematography and a more passionate and moody atmosphere. However, Carlos Villarias as the Count is not nearly as charismatic as Lugosi, though he can be quite menacing and feral.

I'll be back soon with the Hammer Films, BBC, Coppola, and Gerard Butler versions! Meanwhile, please feel free to discuss your own favorite classic monster!

(*)In the early days of sound [pictures], it was common for Hollywood studios to produce Hollywood foreign-language versions of their films (usually in French, Spanish and German) using the same sets, costumes and etc. --wikipedia

 

The two other sources in English are Sheridan le Fanu ("Carmilla") and John Polidori ("The Vampyre")

The French film "Vampyr" (directed by Danish director Carl Dreyer) is based on "Carmilla"

 

From the 1931 Lugosi/Browning classic, we have to flash forward almost 30 years -- to 1958 -- before another attempt at filming the Stoker novel was attempted.

In the intervening years, there were a number of films featuring the character or name of Dracula, but none that employed the novel or any of Stoker's writings as a source. These non-Stoker-inspired films included a direct sequel to the Lugosi film, titled Dracula's Daughter (1936), which was purportedly based on a chapter supposedly excised from the novel, published separately as a short story, called "Dracula's Guest", but the similarities between story and film are non-existent. At all events, Lugosi did not reprise his role in the 1936 film and since it has no relation to Stoker's work, it is only of sidebar relevance here.

Lugosi did play Dracula once more on film, in 1948's Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, but the character as depicted bears so little resemblance to Stoker's creation that I mention it only in passing.

In the 1940s there were other films with Dracula's name in the title or in the film, such as Son of Dracula (1943), with Lon Chaney Jr. as the titular 20th century Count, and House of Frankenstein (1944) and House of Dracula (1945), the latter two featuring John Carradine as the American-sounding, pencil-thin-mustachioed Count, but these are so far removed from Stoker that again I list them only for the sake of completeness.

It was not until 1958 that the English studio Hammer Films, which had had such wild success with its Curse of Frankenstein and Mummy pictures, essayed to film Stoker's novel once more. The Horror of Dracula (known in the UK simply as Dracula) is the result, a garish, bloody, full-color rendition that, while it deviates substantially from the novel, is still more faithful than any version attempted until the 1977 BBC version (which see an upcoming post). The characters are shuffled around (Mina is Holmwood's wife, Lucy his sister) or omitted entirely (Renfield is especially missed), and Jonathan Harker is depicted not as a hapless victim but as a purposeful vampire slayer on a mission to kill the Count! The plot is set in motion when Harker kills Dracula's Bride, an act which inspires Dracula to seek out Harker's fiancee, who in this version is Lucy rather than Mina. Lee's Count owes something to the suave, handsome Lugosi, but his performance soon gives way to the feral, animalistic Dracula for which Lee is widely known and beloved. Cushing, of course, plays Van Helsing, called here simply "Dr. Helsing". The climax is memorable, and is the only version of which I am aware that climaxes in the depths of Castle Dracula, in this case with Van Helsing making a cross out of candlesticks which cast a shadow on the Count's face from the incoming daylight, causing the bloodsucker to crumble to dust before our eyes. Awesome.

It's interesting to note that in this 1958 film, Lee's Dracula cannot shapeshift into a bat or wolf, does not grow young, knows no magic or sorcery, and is considerably more debilitated by sunlight than he is in the earlier films or Stoker's novel.

More to come soon!

 

Not that everyone is clamoring to post here, but I at least am having fun going through the Stoker-inspired Dracula movies (and some that aren't). I also hope that eventually I'll hit on a horror icon that others here will feel compelled to respond to. After I finish Dracula, I plan on moving ahead to Frankenstein('s Monster), so maybe that one will draw out more people and inspire more responses.

Horror cinema of the 60s and early 70s was dominated by Hammer Studios' increasingly garish and violent films. In all, Hammer made eight films in the Dracula franchise; none of the seven sequels to the 1958 "original" were based on Stoker's novel (apart from Christopher Lee's insistence that a line of dialogue from the novel be included in every Dracula film he was in, except Prince of Darkness, in which he did not speak).

The Hammer Dracula Series:

Horror of Dracula (1958) - Discussed in an above post. Based on Stoker's novel with some substantial changes to plot and character. Overall a very satisfying Dracula film.

Brides of Dracula (1960) - This direct sequel did not feature Lee or Dracula at all, but is a kind of alternate-reality re-telling of the first part of Stoker's story, with a female teacher coming to Transylvania in place of Jonathan Harker, and one Baron Meinster taking Dracula's place as the reviled vampire villain. Meinster is difficult to take seriously in the part, with his blond hair, lavender cape (!) and pretty-boy looks. He is supposed to be a disciple of Dracula, creating a tenuous link to the first film (as does Cushing's presence as Van Helsing).

Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966) - This one rightly ignores the silly Brides, and picks up where Horror left off almost 10 years before. It owes nothing to Stoker, but has some startling moments and is overall a good entry in the series. It's the first instance of several in which Lee's Dracula meets his demise by slipping and falling, in this case into an icy river where he is trapped.

Wikipedia reports:

Dracula does not speak in the film; this was not an artistic decision, but the result of Lee's refusal to speak the dialogue that was written for him. He remarked, "I didn?t speak in that picture. The reason was very simple. I read the script and saw the dialogue! I said to Hammer, if you think I?m going to say any of these lines, you?re very much mistaken." [Supernal Dreams: Christopher Lee on "Horror of Dracula" & "Curse of Frankenstein" - showing at the "Shock it to Me!" festival | Cinefantastique Online]

Dracula Has Risen From the Grave (1968) - Probably my favorite of the Hammer Drac films, it owes nothing to Stoker except a single line of dialogue, but is suitably dark and weird, with a fairly compelling plot regarding a faithless priest and a monsignor bent on freeing the local village from the evil of Dracula. In the opening sequence, the monsignor's blood (from a climbing accident on his way to exorcise the castle) trickles into the melting river where the Count has been trapped, reviving him. At the climax, Dracula (you guessed it) slips and falls, impaling himself on a large crucifix he had ordered thrown down. D'oh!

Taste the Blood of Dracula (1970) - Somewhat silly follow-up to Grave, with a businessman stumbling upon Dracula as he dies impaled on the cross at the end of the previous film, and collecting the Count's blood which he sells to a Satanist named Courtley, who drinks the blood and, oddly, becomes Christopher Lee. Rather goofy plot that ends with Dracula -- gasp! -- falling, dazed by a Mass recitation, onto a church altar.

Scars of Dracula (1970) - The most violent and gruesome of all the Hammer Dracula series, this one also gives the Count more to do and say than in any installment apart from the first in 1958. It also restores some of the Stoker-created elements of Dracula's persona, including command over nature and the ability to scale the walls of his castle. Dracula also uses weapons such as knives and swords. His death scene is a little more

 

Hm. I'm in general a Hammer fan, as i grew up watching a bunch of these movies, but it has been years. I may revisit them someday. With that in mind, it might not be the best idea to spoil the ending of each? Just a thought, as I imagine most of us can figure out that Dracula is going to die by the end and be resurrected for the next, since it's the basic nature of vampires anyway.

The ninth Hammer outing you mention is one that I missed back in the day, and was fairly traumatized at the time. It was the re-cut version called "Seven Brothers and their Sister vs. The Vampire," or at least that's how I remember it. Looking it up online culls a slightly different title, but they'll never replace the data emblazoned into my memory banks at the tender age of seven or so. Such pictures were easy enough to catch on TV, but this was on at the theater, and was R-rated. Hence, my mother decided I probably shouldn't see it, despite my heated protests. (I was still allowed to see Alien around the same time.) I was mesmerized at the cross-genre possibilities.

Fast forward about 30 years, and there both versions are available in a single set on Amazon. Just now ordered it!

I'm still a little out on all the iterations of the venerable "American" classic monsters, but when you get to Godzilla and Michael Myers, we'll have a little more to discuss. Oh, and I'm really looking forward to Benicio Del Toro's upcoming Wolfman flick!

 

Jedi-soon, thanks for chiming in! I too grew up watching (edited) Hammer films on syndicated TV in the 70s; by the time I was 8, I was an avowed horror and Hammer buff. When I was 9 I got a book called Horrors: From Screen to Scream by Ed Naha, an encyclopedia of information and reviews of every single horror, fantasy and science fiction film released up to about 1975! That book made me the local expert in the subject, and has informed my love of genre cinema ever since.

And though I've never seen Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires (1974) (also known as The Seven Brothers Meet Dracula and Dracula and the Seven Golden Vampires, among other names), reading about it promises one hell of a weird ride! It was a co-production with Hong Kong's Shaw Studios and was co-directed by kung fu filmmaker Chang Cheh. In it, Van Helsing (Cushing in his last performance of the role) travels to China, where he tries to end a vampiric reign of terror over a rural village. Kung fu scenes trade off with typical Hammer horror shenanigans throughout the picture. I won't give away any spoilers at Jedi-soon's request, but since the posters and alternate titles reveal that Dracula is in it, it's worth noting at least that English actor John Forbes-Robertson plays the Count in Hammer's final rendition of the villainous vampire.

BTW, regarding my spoiler-y revelation of Dracula's means of demise at the end of each Hammer film, allow me to explain. 1) These films are several decades old; 2) the specific method of Dracula's death is often depicted in still images which accompany on-line reviews, and also in horror books and magazines published since the 1970s; 3) as Jedi-soon points out, everyone knows Dracula dies at the end anyway; and 4) reading a one-sentence summary of the scene is not nearly as jarring or absurd or thrilling as seeing it in the film itself! So there's that.

Now, to round out my list of Christopher Lee Dracula pictures, there are two from this period which are not Hammer films but which star Lee in the title role.

Count Dracula (1970), directed by Jesus Franco, purports to "retell exactly" Stoker's novel, and indeed it adheres more closely to the source than any film until the 1977 BBC version (which see a forthcoming post). But it diverges from the novel in a number of key areas, including combining Quincey Morris with Arthur Holmwood, placing Harker in Seward's mental asylum for a time, giving Van Helsing a stroke and putting him in a wheelchair (and thereby taking him out of play for the climax), and depicting Dracula's demise [SPOILER ahead!] as being burned in his coffin on the way to Transylvania. The film looks like a Hammer film but isn't. Its highlights are the performances of Lee as Dracula (with white hair and mustache being very close to the novel's characterization) and Klaus Kinski (who would play the title role in the re-make of Nosferatu in 1979) as Renfield. All in all a serviceable attempt at adapting the book, but not especially noteworthy except for the performances.

Dracula and Son (1976), a French film directed by Edouard Molinaro, is not really a Dracula picture, though it stars Christopher Lee as a contemporary vampire father called the Prince of Tenebres. The title was chosen based on the impetus to sell more tickets, to Lee's dissatisfaction. A reviewer on imdb reports: ""Dracula Père et Fils" was never an excellent film. At the most, it was a sometimes funny vampire satire with good psychological aspects out of the Oedipal conflict father/son and sociological criticisms concerning the immigrants, not so well treated in France."

In my next post I'll review the BBC and American television versions from the 1970s (with Louis Jordan and Jack Palance, respectively), and the two Dracula films from 1979 (with Frank Langella and Klaus Kinski)!

 

Thanks. I've probably got a bit of a bug about spoilers at the moment since I just read a major one a few days ago regarding the final Zatoichi film, itself being twenty years old. However, I've never seen it so it's still gonna be new to me when I finally get to watch it. The kicker is I read the spoiler on film #26 casually mentioned on the amazon page for film #3.

Sorry! Don't mean to derail the thread. The Frank Langella Drac is perhaps the one i recall most fondly! Wasn't it "just" a tv movie?

 

Oh no, the Langella-starring Dracula (1979) was a full theatrical release and a major Universal production. It was directed by John Badham, hot on the heels of his huge commercial and critical success with Saturday Night Fever. There is something quite disco-chic (pronounced 'sheek') about the whole affair, with its sensual, vaseline-lensed imagery and heart-throb leading man. John Williams provides a brooding, elegant score, and the production values are lusciously realized. This Dracula is based on the same Deane-Balderaton play that ran on Broadway in the late 1920s, and which inspired the famous Lugosi/Browning/Laemmle film of 1931. But it expands and expounds on the earlier stage version, filling it with a rather overt sexuality that is thoroughly modern. Sir Laurence Olivier co-stars as Van Helsing, and Donald Pleasance as Dr. Seward.

As to differences between it and Stoker's novel, the entire first-act Transylvania sequence is omitted; not only is it not shown, it never occurred. Also, as in the stage play and 1931 film, Morris and Holmwood are deleted. Mina and Lucy are typically exchanged and altered, and Dracula and Lucy have a romantic relationship. The Count never shows fangs or transforms into a bat, wolf or monster; he is depicted realistically and romantically throughout. Dracula dies [SPOILER!] aboard ship trying to return to Transylvania, pushed by Harker into the sunlight, which unlike in the novel, destroys the Count.

I really like this film for its atmosphere, music, production values, and performances, but it... well, it lacks teeth. It is seen favorably among modern viewers and has had something of a resurgence on DVD and cable in the last few years, some fans holding it as the "quintessential vampire film". I disagree with that, but it is very good.

The currently available DVD is based on a color-drained, almost monochrome version that director Badham insisted on, a stark contrast to the theatrical release's originally sumptuous and vibrant colors.

Now I've got ahead of myself. I meant to address the 1970s TV versions first, then move on to the two 1979 films, but Jedi-soon wrangled me into discussing the Langella film first, that devil. Oh, well! I'll get to the BBC and American TV movies next, both of which are quite good in their way.

 

I haven't seen "Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires" in years but I remember it was a lot of fun. The Chinese have their own version of vampires but they are more like zombies. They also hop which to western eyes appears absurd as opposed to scary. There are various versions of the film. Actor David Chiang spoke phonetic English and it is very obvious while the Hammer actors look terrible in the action sequences. Despite the flaws I still liked the strange combination.

 

2nd Quest, why don't I leave the Castlevania entries in your capable hands? I've been watching Dracula movies since I was six, but Castlevania? I played it on Nintendo in the late 80s for about a month, end of story.

BTW, last night I watched Nosferatu (1922) for the first time in several years. The print I have on CATCOM DVD updates all the character names on the dialogue and narration cards to match those in Stoker's novel, replacing "Count Orlock" with "Count Dracula", "Thomas Hutter" with the (misspelled) "Jonathon Harker", and so forth. As a Dracula fan I much prefer it this way. One element that comes forward missing from other, German-language prints of Nosferatu is that the Van Helsing character is indeed in the film, in the German version as "Prof. Bulwer", whom Hutter/Harker goes to fetch while Nina/Mina/Ellen stays behind to sacrifice herself. However, this "Van Helsing" is a brief part, is not a vampire hunter and indeed knows nothing of such creatures, so the connection is tenuous, but hey, at least he's in there.

 

That Van Helsing character has always been there but his role is insignificant in the long run and the picture would work fine if he was cut out all together. His scene on the lecture of the fly trap is somewhat ironic and fun though.

Herzog greatly expands the Van Helsing character in his remake of Nosferatu. He is arrested for murder after being seen with a bloody stake

 

Yes, I find that Van Helsing/Bulwer's lecture on and demonstration of the venus flytrap's workings is comparable to the way the character is introduced in other Dracula films, eg Anthony Hopkins in the 1992 film (which see an upcoming post) lecturing about syphilis, and examining the disease's action on blood cells under a microscope. It seems every age has its biological metaphor for vampirism.

Among other noteworthy points about Nosferatu (1922) is that it established the myth that sunlight destroys vampires. In Stoker's novel (as in the 1992 film) the Count can move about by day, though his powers are diminished. Sunlight severely weakening or destroying vampires has been an element of nearly every vampire movie and novel (including the popular Vampire Chronicles by Anne Rice) since the first such movie in 1922.

Moving on, we have two television treatments of Stoker's novel:

Dracula (1973) - Directed by Dan Curtis of Dark Shadows fame (a popular late-60s vampire soap opera) and starring Jack Palance, this film is fairly close to the source material but still takes numerous liberties with the story. The characters of Morris, Renfield and Seward are deleted, an odd choice considering that the latter two, Renfield and Seward, are staples of nearly every adaptation. Here, as in the 1958 Hammer film, Harker becomes a vampire. Most notably, Dracula believes that Lucy is the reincarnation of his lost love, an element culled from the Dark Shadows program and used later (with Mina) in the 1992 film. Jack Palace gives a surprisingly convincing performance as the Count, being somewhat sympathetic but still a fearsome incarnation of evil. [SPOILER ahead!] Dracula is killed by Van Helsing via a spear through the heart; there is no chase toward the castle. Only Van Helsing and Holmwood make the journey to Dracula's Castle to confront him, there killing both the vampiric Harker and the Count. All in all an effective rendition of the tale, and well worth the investment in time.

This movie was shot in the UK, but I could not discover whether it was made by the BBC. Initially I thought it was an American production, since it stars Jack Palance, but I appear to have been wrong. Anyone with any further information about the production company will be much appreciated.

Count Dracula (1977) - My personal favorite of all versions of the novel. Directed by English journeyman actor and television director Philip Saville, and starring Louis Jordan (of Octopussy fame) as the Count, this BBC movie is probably the closest to the novel any adaptation has ever come. Dracula is from the start urbane and refined rather than being hideous and repulsive, unlike in the book, but this really works in the story's favor because while he looks normal, his words and demeanor are positively throbbing with malevolence. As usual, Morris and Holmwood are combined into one character, in this case an American diplomat, and Lucy and Mina are sisters, but apart from those variations the story and characters are almost exactly as presented in Stoker. The action-adventure climax with the carriage chase through the Carpathians and the fight with Dracula's gypsies is shown for what I believe is the first time in any adaptation. [SPOILER ahead!] The climax occurs just before sunset rather than just after sunrise as in the novel, giving Dracula a self-satisfied moment of imminent victory... just before Van Helsing kills the Count with a long stake driven through his heart![/spoiler] Overall the realism and naturalism of the movie lends a very convincing air to the story, including the use of realistic-looking blood and natural lighting. "Trippy" video effects and surrealistic editing techniques heighten reality at certain points, but apart from that the movie is almost entirely free of special effects.

I cannot stress enough how excellent this movie is, especially for Dracula buffs such as myself! If you like the Count and/or have read the novel but have never seen a close adaptation of it, seek this movie out (I got it on ebay fo

 

The Superlative Dracula Film... Almost!

Bram Stoker?s Dracula (1992) ? Directed by Francis Ford Coppola and starring Gary Oldman, this is in some ways the closest in detail of all adaptations of Stoker's novel, while in some ways it strays further afield than any other version. The technical aspects on display are masterful: vivid cinematography, gorgeous costuming, sweeping music, hideous make-up and lush production design are all beautifully and sensuously realized. The special effects, by Roman Coppola, are achieved almost exclusively in-camera, utilizing techniques invented in the early days of cinema, such as split screens, double exposures, dissolves, puppetry and miniatures. (There is only one computer effect in the film, in one of the final shots, in which Dracula morphs from an elderly monster back into his youthful, "pure", presumably "saved" self). Stylistically, this is a very unusual production, employing dizzying camera movements and startling editing techniques to unsettle the audience, to present us with a visual feast, and to immerse us in the strange, dark world of the film.

The actors are almost uniformly above par, with Oldman delivering an exceptionally nuanced performance that is at once sympathetic and vile, tightly controlled and consumed by an inner chaos that seems to leak out through his languid blue eyes. Oldman?s line delivery is spontaneous and fresh, even conversational, and his recitation of long-familiar dialogue is unique and resonant with character. As Van Helsing, Anthony Hopkins is zealous and lively, touched with an eccentricity and unpredictability that make him a welcome, if somewhat enigmatic, on-screen presence and occasional narrator. Winona Ryder turns in a convincing performance as Mina, an emotionally challenging role she addresses with suitably Victorian restraint, and an understated femininity that contrasts with the playful sexuality of Lucy and the voracious carnality of Dracula's three brides. Sadie Frost, as Lucy, is as sweet as she is nubile, evoking our sympathies even as she wastes away under Dracula?s accursed ministrations; as the undead vampiress, she is appropriately horrid and menacing. Even Keanu Reeves, as Harker, is strongly and convincingly emotive, though his English accent is not quite up to par; he turns in a passable performance which, though lacking depth, is at least credible enough to maintain the continuity of the film. The supporting cast includes a comical and over-acted Renfield (Tom Waits), who has little do but gross out the audience eating worms and bugs, and chewing scenery; a somewhat bumbling and ineffectual Dr. Seward, (Richard E. Grant), who cannot seem to put together that the monster they hunt and his patient Renfield?s ?Master? are one in the same; a commanding and love-lorn Arthur Holmwood (Cary Elwes); and a brash and adventurous Quincey Morris (Bill Campbell), the only unmitigated instance of the latter two characters ever realized on film.

Of all the various versions and adaptations of the novel, this film is the most faithful in terms of the progression of the story, the use of epistolary records to exposit the plot, and the inclusion of almost all the characters, lacking only the minor roles of Mr. Swales and the parents of Lucy and Arthur in its list of historiae personae. It is the least faithful in terms of its overt eroticism, in the presentation of the character of Dracula as equivalent with Vlad III the Impaler (an allusion not made by Stoker himself but only supposed, in the face of evidence to the contrary, by recent commentators), and in the romantic sub-plot involving Mina as the reincarnated spirit of Vlad?s first wife, Elisabeta. The latter two ideas ? Dracula as Vlad III and Mina as his long-lost love ? are also features of the 1973 television film starring Jack Palance and directed by Dark Shadows creator Dan Curtis (though in that film it is Lucy, not Mina, after whom Dracula seeks as his resurrected lover).

The film is not perfect; in additi

 

Well, tastes do vary. To my mind, this film is unwatchable, it's so florid. But then, I like understatement.

 

Great friggin movie. There hasn't been a vampire film to equal it since, IMO.

 

The film is certainly florid, extravagant, over-the-top, as though we're peering into Sam Raimi's mind as he has a nightmare after reading the novel. But it is also artful, imaginative, and sensual, as only FF Coppola can deliver. YMMV, as the poet said.

To those who prefer subtlety and understatement, once more I heartily recommend the 1977 BBC version (reviewed in an above post), which remains my favorite adaptation and is suitably restrained.

Next post I'll wrap up my thoughts on Dracula, and invite another commentator to give us a comprehensive overview of their own favorite monster of film and/or literature.

 

Okay, thanks! I look forward to your 'Castlevania' contribution.

 

I've got one more post on the subject of Dracula, then I'll step aside and let someone else take the reins, if they wish, to comment on other horror icons. If not, I'm content to let this thread languish in obscurity, in the back pages of the Amphitheatre forum, covered with cobwebs and the dust of the ages.

First, a brief mention of the Gerard Butler-starring Dracula 2000, produced (and I understand, partly re-written) by Wes Craven and released in December 2000. While I don't think it deserves the full treatment here, since it does not derive from Stoker's novel but rather from the various movie incarnations I've listed above, it's decent enough to mention, and is actually kinda thrilling in its own goofy way. Butler of course is good as Drac, as he is in just about anything he's in, and the scenes of horror which do not rely on CGI, but rather on slick editing techniques and startling imagery, are actually quite effective. The premise is all kinds of absurd, especially since [SPOILERS ahead!] Dracula turned to dust in Transylvania when he was destroyed, and it makes very little sense that Van Helsing would have kept his entire body in his antique shop for 100+ years, while injecting himself with vampiric blood to stay alive! That is just head-bangingly silly. But once you get past that, the movie is rather enjoyable, and the ending -- with Dracula [SPOILER!] hanging by his neck from a rope attached to an image of Christ while the sun comes up causing him to burst into flame -- is inspired. Absurd beyond all description, but inspired.

Second, an expansion of my review of the 1977 BBC movie Count Dracula. I had not seen the movie in many years when I offered the first review, and I watched it today with baited breath, so here is a more complete analysis:

Count Dracula (1977) 150 min. - Directed by English journeyman actor and television director Philip Saville, written by Gerald Savory and starring Louis Jourdan as the Count, this BBC movie is the closest to the novel any adaptation has ever approached. Dracula is from the start urbane and refined, and unlike in the book, he is of indeterminate middle age, clean-shaven with black hair. Yet while he looks normal, his words and demeanor positively throb with malevolence. As is usual in such adaptations, Morris and Holmwood are combined into one character, in this case an American diplomat from Texas, and Lucy and Mina are written as sisters rather than good friends. But apart from these relatively minor variations, the story, characters and even the dialogue are nearly exactly as presented in Stoker.

The performances are typical of 1970s BBC ?novels-for-television? in that they are engaging but not overpowering, credible but rarely exceptional, and intense where appropriate, without resorting to scene-stealing or scenery-chewing. From the ensemble only two performers emerge as notable: Judi Bowker, known to fantasy fans from her turn as Andromeda in the 1981 film Clash of the Titans, is a stand-out as Mina, all limpid blue eyes and white, swan-like throat; her dreamy reveries as a vampiress-in-training, and her outcries of dread and remorse both at Lucy?s passing and at her own acceptance of the Count?s vile ministrations, posess an emotive quality that elevate her performance above her fellows. And Louis Jourdan as the Count is the picture of aristocratic restraint; even when we can sense his rage, he is calm and controlled, confident in his looming triumph. Early in the movie, Dracula?s discourses with Harker are warm, welcoming, even friendly, but these soon decompose into icy double-speak as he browbeats and cajoles his captive in the most polite manner imaginable. His toothy smile, described by Stoker as ?charming?, is as politic as it is threatening.

At 2 ½ hours, the movie is a bit long, a langud slow-build punctuated by moments of startling horror that last just long enough to pique our appetite for the next shock. There is a degree of theatricality in the actors? mannerisms and in the staging of some of the scenes, but overall the rea

 

Moving on to Frankenstein.

Mary Shelley began writing this, arguably the first science-fiction novel, during the volcanic winter of 1816, "the year without a summer", when she was 18. It was first published anonymously in 1818, when she was 20, but later brought her much success and acclaim.

Most of us know the broad outlines of the story: young science student discovers the secret to life, obsessively creates a living man from dead body parts, and watches in horror as the Creature destroys the scientist's loved ones and, ultimately, his life. It's a gripping and sometimes gruesome cautionary tale of science going so far as to "mock the stupendous mechanism of the Creator of the world".

Lately I've been reading the novel and watching various cinematic versions of it. Here is my review of the first one I watched.

Terror of Frankenstein (1975) -- An Irish/Swedish co-production, it's as close to a "page-by-page re-telling" of the novel as any film version is likely to come. Highest among its several accolades is the performance by Per Oscarsson as the Monster. Grim and husky-voiced, tall with massive hands, and with a melancholy look in his eyes, he matches Shelley's characterization to a T. His accent and halting manner of speech give further credibility to his craft.

The only aspects of Oscarsson's Monster that I dislike are his black lips -- which look made-up rather than post-mortem -- and his ash-gray hair. He looks most like Shelley's Monster when he's in the shadows, and you can imagine his hair is black!

The plot is a fine summary of the events of the novel, with almost every major scene given full treatment. Only two big elements are missing from the story: the framing of Justine, and the fact that the rural family vacates the cottage before the Monster torches it. Other than that, and a few minor points such as Frankenstein's father's death, Terror is by the far the most faithful of any adaptation, and the best I've seen.

My friend Kev, who recommended it to me, has this to say: "The little it dispenses with, I think, is more a matter of budget than anything. Given the multi-national nature of the production, that's not much of a surprise. The only reasons I can think of for it's not being more widely seen (or appreciated) is that it's "foreign" and has no U.S.-known actors. You see what I mean about that other-worldly quality of the Creature? The movie is so good, on the whole, that I'm willing to overlook the lips and hair. He really captures the rage and loneliness and confusion of the character. I thought the chap playing Frankenstein came off rather well, too. His "Oh, $#!+, what have I done?" moment is very effective.

 

This sounds quite interesting. Following the novel is not generally a good idea, as it is fully of philosophizing--the type that's hard to visualize.

The irony of "Frankenstein" is that it's about creating life, and the Count is held to be defying or playing God when he tries it. Yes, yes, but. Don't men create life all the time, when they sire children? I suppose the point is that he is creating life by himself. Not well, and that may be the point, given the book was written by a woman.

Scandinavia has a long history of famous horror and demon films: "The Phantom Carriage" (1919) is one and I saw it on TCM. It's crude, but genuinely scary in spots. And there was a very well reviewed vampire film recently--the title escapes me.

[Have you seen films by Dario Argento? They are highly recommended by those who *have* seen them, but I haven't been able to.]

 

My favorite version is a made for TV movie called "Frankenstein: The True Story". While it isn't a true adaptation of Shelley's book, I do think that the spirit of the film is closer to what Shelley had in mind. The creature is played by Michael Sarrazin and emerges beautiful & Victor Frankenstein is obsessed with him. Over time the creature begins to decay alongside Victor's interest. James Mason plays Dr Polidori, who creates a "Bride" with Victor's help. The meeting between the creature & bride is unforgettable. Its a good cast with Jane Seymour, Ralph Richardson, John Gielgud, Agnes Moorehead & Tom Baker all showing up. Sexuality is much more evident in this version which isn't a surprise coming from writer Christopher Isherwood. A seldom seen but worth seeking out version.

 

Well, that sounds homo-erotic in the extreme...as you say, not surprising coming from Christopher Isherwood.