← Back to Reviews
in
Horror of Dracula, 1958
Jonathan Harker (John Van Eyssen) travels to the castle of Count Dracula, intent on destroying the vampire. Unfortunately for him, he is unable to complete his mission. Harker's associate, Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) discovers the death of his companion, but is then startled to find that Harker's loved ones, including Lucy (Carol Marsh) and Mina (Melissa Stribling), are under threat from the angered Count.
What a great film to wrap up this October challenge!
Watching adaptations of Dracula, I've often had reason to grouse about the liberties taken with the characters and the plot. This film is actually a pretty big departure from the original novel---both in changing and omitting certain key elements--but it has a fidelity to the character dynamics and the themes of the novel that I feel I've rarely seen.
It's not often that I wish a horror film had been longer, but given the excellent way this film was plotted and paced, I would have LOVED to see the creative minds behind it create an adaptation of the whole novel.
One of my favorite things about this adaptation was the way that it portrayed the devious hold that Dracula had over its victims. It's true that it keeps the underlying sexual implications (Dracula pushes not one but two of his female victims down into their beds, kissing them before the fatal bite), but it explicitly also compares this dynamic to that of drug addiction. And I was impressed by just how bold the performances are from Marsh and Stribling in this regard. They lay in bed, trembling, afraid and yet desperate for Dracula to come through their windows. It's a rather raw portrayal of a kind of addictive lust, underscored by the confusion about what exactly is happening to them.
The film maintains one of the best and creepiest episodes from the novel: that of the undead Lucy luring away a child to feast on her. The scene doesn't begin with Van Helsin and the other men, as it does in the book. Instead, it originates with a weeping Tania (Janina Faye) returning home from a frightening experience, ominously declaring that someone had appeared and invited her to come away for a walk.
Cushing is great as Van Helsing. While he's a bit more formal and maybe a bit less empathetic than the book version (for the record, book Van Helsing is a great character, so I am very judgey about adaptations of his character), he still manages to convey the intelligence and diligence of the man. In many sequences he is understandably exasperated as those around him make clumsy, deadly mistakes because they do not understand the implications of their actions.
Christopher Lee's Dracula is also a pretty great incarnation. Mostly silent, and watchfully predatory, there is something otherworldly about the character. There's also the clear delight that he takes in dominating others, and a feral menace to the way that he pursues Harker's family and loved ones purely out of spite.
I think a great job was done in choosing what to include or omit. Obviously, the death of Harker is a MAJOR departure. But this film also chooses to set all of the action in the same country--no major overseas trips from Transylvania. There is also no Renfield or the equivalent to be found. Dracula operates on his own, with the occasional help of a victim under his thrall. And yet the film still holds onto a few echoes from the novel. I really liked a sequence where Van Helsing and his main ally, Arthur (Michael Gough) discuss strategy, seemingly oblivious to Mina who sits silent--but listening!--in the background. This recalls a whole two chapters from the novel where the men choose to cut Mina out of their planning, despite the fact that she has information that would be key to discovering and defeating the vampire.
Just all around great stuff and certainly my favorite Dracula adaptation that I've seen.
Horror of Dracula, 1958
Jonathan Harker (John Van Eyssen) travels to the castle of Count Dracula, intent on destroying the vampire. Unfortunately for him, he is unable to complete his mission. Harker's associate, Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) discovers the death of his companion, but is then startled to find that Harker's loved ones, including Lucy (Carol Marsh) and Mina (Melissa Stribling), are under threat from the angered Count.
What a great film to wrap up this October challenge!
Watching adaptations of Dracula, I've often had reason to grouse about the liberties taken with the characters and the plot. This film is actually a pretty big departure from the original novel---both in changing and omitting certain key elements--but it has a fidelity to the character dynamics and the themes of the novel that I feel I've rarely seen.
It's not often that I wish a horror film had been longer, but given the excellent way this film was plotted and paced, I would have LOVED to see the creative minds behind it create an adaptation of the whole novel.
One of my favorite things about this adaptation was the way that it portrayed the devious hold that Dracula had over its victims. It's true that it keeps the underlying sexual implications (Dracula pushes not one but two of his female victims down into their beds, kissing them before the fatal bite), but it explicitly also compares this dynamic to that of drug addiction. And I was impressed by just how bold the performances are from Marsh and Stribling in this regard. They lay in bed, trembling, afraid and yet desperate for Dracula to come through their windows. It's a rather raw portrayal of a kind of addictive lust, underscored by the confusion about what exactly is happening to them.
The film maintains one of the best and creepiest episodes from the novel: that of the undead Lucy luring away a child to feast on her. The scene doesn't begin with Van Helsin and the other men, as it does in the book. Instead, it originates with a weeping Tania (Janina Faye) returning home from a frightening experience, ominously declaring that someone had appeared and invited her to come away for a walk.
Cushing is great as Van Helsing. While he's a bit more formal and maybe a bit less empathetic than the book version (for the record, book Van Helsing is a great character, so I am very judgey about adaptations of his character), he still manages to convey the intelligence and diligence of the man. In many sequences he is understandably exasperated as those around him make clumsy, deadly mistakes because they do not understand the implications of their actions.
Christopher Lee's Dracula is also a pretty great incarnation. Mostly silent, and watchfully predatory, there is something otherworldly about the character. There's also the clear delight that he takes in dominating others, and a feral menace to the way that he pursues Harker's family and loved ones purely out of spite.
I think a great job was done in choosing what to include or omit. Obviously, the death of Harker is a MAJOR departure. But this film also chooses to set all of the action in the same country--no major overseas trips from Transylvania. There is also no Renfield or the equivalent to be found. Dracula operates on his own, with the occasional help of a victim under his thrall. And yet the film still holds onto a few echoes from the novel. I really liked a sequence where Van Helsing and his main ally, Arthur (Michael Gough) discuss strategy, seemingly oblivious to Mina who sits silent--but listening!--in the background. This recalls a whole two chapters from the novel where the men choose to cut Mina out of their planning, despite the fact that she has information that would be key to discovering and defeating the vampire.
Just all around great stuff and certainly my favorite Dracula adaptation that I've seen.