Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror

 Year:  1922

Director:  F. W. Murnau

Screenplay:  Henrik Galeen, based on the novel Dracula by Bram Stoker

Starring:  Max Schreck, Gustav von Wangenheim, Greta Schröder, Alexander Granach, Ruth Landschoff, Wolfgang Heinz

Running Time:  84 minutes

Genre:  Horror

Wisborg, 1838:  Young clerk Hutter (von Wangenheim) is sent by his sinister boss, Knock (Granach), to a remote castle high in the Carpathian Mountains in Transylvania to negotiate the purchase of a house by the mysterious nobleman Count Orlok (Schreck).  Hutter soon discovers the horrific truth that Count Orlok is a blood-thirsty vampire or nosferatu.

This classic silent horror film is technically the first adaptation of Bram Stoker's famous novel Dracula.  However the adaptation was unauthorised and unofficial.  The filmmakers approached Stoker's widow, Florence Stoker, for the rights to adapt the film, but they decided that they couldn't afford the price she was asking, and so they just decided to go ahead anyway.  When Florence Stoker found out, she was furious, and sued the filmmakers, bankrupting the studio, with the court ordering all copies of the film to be destroyed.  However it had already been exported internationally and some prints resurfaced in France and the United States.  The film is one of the most influential horror films ever made.  While not as heavily stylised as the surreal dreamscape of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1919), it is part of the German Expressionist movement, in which the character's inner worlds are reflected in the outer world.  Viewed today, it does suffer from overly melodramatic acting, as well as director F. W. Murnau's decision to use sped-up motion in scenes such as the carriage driving through the forest, and Orlok loading his coffins into a cart.  Murnau, apparently thought that sped-up motion was scary, but today it looks more comical than anything else, although at this point cinema was still very new and was still trying to find it's own language and style.   In fact some of Murnau's innovations work very well, for example the novel Dracula is told through diaries, journals, newspaper cuttings, and so on, and Murnau carefully designed the intertitles of the film himself to replicate the pages of old books and documents.  Despite being 100 years old, the film is still hugely effective, and is still one of the greatest vampire films ever made.  The vampire in Nosferatu is based on the traditional European folkloric vampire, as a hideous reanimated corpse rather than a suave lounge lizard in evening dress.  Max Schreck makes an indelible impression as Count Orlok, a cadaverous figure incased in black, his hands as grotesque talons, bat-like ears, bald, with a pinched face and sharp, rodent-like fangs.  The vampire is explicitly connected with disease, arriving in the town of Wisborg, accompanied by hordes of rats, and bringing the plague.  Schreck's portrayal was so convincing that there were rumours at the time that he really was a vampire.  The rumour inspired its own film Shadow of the Vampire (2000), a fictionalised version of the filming of Nosferatu starring John Malkovich and Willem Dafoe.  The film contains some unforgettable images, such as Orlok on the death ship; the shadow of the vampire creeping up the stairs towards his victim; and also the climax where the vampire is dissolved by the rays of the sun.  Possibly the film's biggest contribution to vampire lore is the idea of the vampire being destroyed by sunlight.  In Dracula, the vampire is weakened by sunlight, but it is not lethal.    Nosferatu was remade in 1979 as Nosferatu the Vampyr, written and directed by Werner Herzog, with Klaus Kinski as the vampire, and another remake is set for release in 2024.  Although originating as an unauthorised adaptation of a popular novel, Nosferatu has grown beyond its origins, casting an indelible shadow that lingers to this day.

Max Schreck as Count Orlok in Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror
     

Dracula

 Year:  1974

Director:  Dan Curtis

Screenplay:  Richard Matheson, from the novel Dracula by Bram Stoker

Starring:  Jack Palance, Simon Ward, Nigel Davenport, Pamela Brown, Fiona Lewis, Penelope Horner

Running Time:  100 minutes

Genre:  Horror

1897:  Solicitor Jonathan Harker (Murray Brown) is in Transylvania to visit mysterious nobleman Count Dracula (Palance), who plans to buy property in England.  However, Harker finds out too late, what his host's true motivations are.  In England, Arthur Holmwood (Ward) discovers that his fiancé Lucy (Lewis) is Dracula's latest victim, and it is up to him and Professor Van Helsing (Davenport) to stop the vampire for good.

The good count himself may not have proved to be immortal, but Bram Stoker's classic vampire novel has proved to be well nigh un-killable, with numerous adaptations in almost all forms of media.  Every Dracula fan has their favourite, and while this made-for-TV movie may not be one of the best, it is still a solid adaptation.  Producer and director Dan Curtis was familiar with horror having created the frankly bizarre supernatural daily soap opera Dark Shadows (1966-1971), as well as the TV movie The Night Stalker (1972) which was also scripted by Richard Matheson, and other adaptations of horror classics such as The Strange Case of Doctor Jekyll and Mister Hyde (1968) which also starred Jack Palance.  As scripted by horror writer Richard Matheson, this adaptation of Dracula remains faithful to Stoker's novel, albeit streamlining it a lot and cutting many supporting characters, including Dracula's bug-eating servant  Renfield.  Jack Palance, who was best known for playing heavies in gangster films and Westerns, may seem a strange choice for Dracula, but he does well, giving Dracula a Byronic menace, as well as a physicality often absent in other versions of the character.  The other performances are solid, and the film benefits from being filmed largely in England and Yugoslavia, despite being made for American TV.  While the film has its slow points, and there are times when the fairly low budget is obvious, it is a pretty impressive piece of work, and well worth checking out for horror fans.  The film's on-screen title is Bram Stoker's Dracula but, when Francis Ford Coppola was preparing his own film, also titled Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992), he bought the rights to the title in order to avoid comparisons, and the 1974 film is listed as either Dracula or Dan Curtis' Dracula.  There are a couple of other points of similarity between this and the 1992 film, in both Dracula is explicitly referred to as the historical Vlad Dracula (aka Vlad the Impaler) and in both versions Dracula hunts down the reincarnation of his lost love (Lucy in this film and Mina in the 1992 film).     

Jack Palance is Dracula

Dracula

Year of Release:  1958

Director:  Terence Fisher

Screenplay:  Jimmy Sangster, based on the novel Dracula by Bram Stoker

Starring:  Peter Cushing, Michael Gough, Melissa Stribling, Christopher Lee

Running Time:  82 minutes

Genre:  Horror

In 1885, Doctor Van Helsing (Cushing) investigates the disappearance of his friend Jonathan Harker (John Van Eyssen), vampire hunter, at the Castle Dracula.   Van Helsing soon realises that Harker has fallen victim to the evil vampire Dracula (Lee) who has now set his sights on Harker's friends and family.  

Produced by the now legendary Hammer Films, this is probably the highpoint of what is known as "Hammer Horror".  It features the Hammer hallmarks of lavish production values (despite a low budget), classically trained actors, stories based on legendary horror tales, and most importantly all the blood and heaving bosoms that the 1950s censors would allow, photographed in vivid colour.  Christopher Lee turned in a star making performance as Dracula.  Lee made Dracula sexy and physical, moving from suave sophistication to demoniac monster.  Peter Cushing complements him as the rational but compassionate Van Helsing.  The film suffers from a low budget and some obvious day-for-night shooting, as well as an indeterminate sense of place where, despite being set in Eastern Europe, everyone seems to be English, but the qualities far outweigh the negatives.  Lee and Cushing became horror icons with this film.  Right from the opening images of Dracula's tomb spattered with blood this is empty of any inessentials.  This is a full blooded horror, which brought blood, fangs and sex to the vampire film.   

Christopher Lee is Dracula

Dracula: Prince of Darkness

Year of Release:  1966
Director:  Terence Fisher
Screenplay:  Jimmy Sangster (as John Sansom), story by Anthony Hinds (as John Elder), based on the novel Dracula by Bram Stoker
Starring:  Christopher Lee, Barbara Shelley, Andrew Keir, Francis Matthews, Suzan Farmer
Running Time:  90 minutes
Genre:  Horror

It has been ten years since the evil vampire Count Dracula (Lee) last terrorized the good people of the Carpathian Mountains, however the toothy terror has not been forgotten, and when four English tourists decide to spend the night at the palatial Castle Dracula, they soon find themselves pitched against the newly resurrected Count, and his human servant Klove (Philip Latham).  Only gruff, boozy monk Father Sandor (Keir) knows how to stop the vampire for good.

This was the third film in Hammer Films successful series of Dracula movies, following Dracula (1958) and The Brides of Dracula (1960), and the second to star Christopher Lee in what would become, at least for awhile, his signature role (despite the title, Count Dracula does not appear at all in The Brides of Dracula).  For those who have forgotten or who missed it, Dracula: Prince of Darkness opens with a short prologue, replaying the finale of Dracula, before moving forward ten years with an arresting scene where Father Sandor brusquely stops the local worthies from staking the body of a young woman as if she were a vampire.  This is a good slice of what would become known as "Hammer Horror", and the hallmarks are all present and correct: Lavish (for the time and budget) production values, full-blooded (no pun intended) performances, vivid colour, and plenty of blood and heaving bosoms (again, considering the time).  The film suffers from it's slow patches, and the quartet that make up Dracula's prey are fairly bland (with the exception of Hammer stalwart Barbara Shelley who gives a great performance moving from nervous buttoned down Victorian lady to savagely seductive vampire).  Aside from the prologue, Christopher Lee does not appear as Count Dracula until quite late into a fairly short film and when he does, he is completely silent, with the exception of the odd hiss.  According to Lee, Dracula did have dialogue in the script, but it was so bad, that he just refused to say it.  However according to writer Jimmy Sangster, Dracula was never intended to have any dialogue, because Sangster didn't believe vampires would be particularly chatty.  Whatever the real reason, Lee still makes the most of his scenes, turning in an energetic physical performance, and Andrew Keir is good as tough, shotgun wielding monk Father Sandor.  Francis Matthews and Suzan Farmer are effective if kind of bland as Dracula's targets.  The film is very creaky by modern standards, and it all looks quite tame now, with the exception of Barbara Shelley, the female characters have very little to do, except swoon, and it's all very white.  It has some good set pieces, Dracula's resurrection scene with it's semi-religious overtones, is very effective, and surprisingly gruesome, and the watery climax is imaginative.

Christopher Lee and Suzan Farmer in Dracula: Prince of Darkness
     

Dracula

Year of Release:  1931
Director:  Tod Browning and Karl Freund (uncredited)
Screenplay:  Garrett Fort, based on the stage play Dracula by Hamilton Deane and John L. Balderston, based on the novel Dracula by Bram Stoker
Starring:  Bela Lugosi, Helen Chandler, David Manners, Dwight Frye, Edward Van Sloan
Running Time:  75 minutes
Genre:  Horror

This is one of the most influential horror films ever made.  an English solicitor, Renfield (Frye) arrives in Transylvania to finalise the purchase of an old abbey by mysterious nobleman Count Dracula (Lugosi).  Renfield soon learns that Dracula is, in reality, a vampire.  Driven insane by his experiences and enslaved to Dracula, Renfield helps the Count travel to England.  Once in Britain, Dracula sets his sights on Mina (Chandler), the daughter of Doctor Seward (Herbert Bunston) who runs the lunatic asylum next to his abbey.

There have been many screen adaptations of Dracula, and this is neither the first or the best of them, but it is still the most influential.  The film bears little resemblance to Bram Stoker's original novel of 1897, being largely based on a hugely successful 1924 stage adaptation which turned the novel into effectively a drawing room mystery.  The film has some extremely atmospheric scenes, particularly early on, capturing a real sense of decay and mystery.  As it comes along the film becomes increasingly flat, it's stage-bound origins very much in evidence.  A lot of the important sequences take place off-screen, including the film's climax, which is hugely disappointing.  There are also plot elements and characters that appear and are dropped without explanation, and it doesn't really flow.  However, Bela Lugosi is the definitive Dracula, even though he bears little resemblance to the character as described by Stoker he is still what comes to mind when you think of "Dracula", and to this day his portrayal is parodied, copied and referenced.  With his slow, fractured, heavily accented speech (Lugosi couldn't speak English at the time and learned his lines phonetically), along with his icy hypnotic stare, he has an otherworldly sense about him that dominates the screen.

This is not a good film, and it really hasn't aged well, but there are some great things in here and it is a key film in the canon of American film and the evolution of the horror film, which make it worth watching, and it is a must-see if only for Bela Lugosi's performance.

Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan) and Count Dracula (Bela Lugosi) in Dracula
  

"Anno Dracula" by Kim Newman

Year of Publication: 1992
Number of Pages: 546 pages
Genre: Horror, fantasy, adventure, crime, alternate history

Summary: London, 1888: Queen Victoria has remarried, and her new husband is the infamous Wallachian prince known as Count Dracula. Now with Dracula at the throne of Britain, the vampire race have come out of hiding and increasing numbers of "warm" (living) citizens have become vampires, and frequently not by choice. Under Dracula's rule, the living increasingly become an underclass, and any hint of insurrection is punishable by imprisonment in brutal prison camps or by summary execution by impalement on wooden stakes.
In the notorious Whitechapel area of London, a brutal killer known as "Silver Knife" has been savagely slaughtering young vampire women. Charles Beauregard, a secret agent for the mysterious Diogenes Club, is ordered to track down the killer. Aiding him is the beautiful 400 year old vampire Genevieve Dieudonne.
As tensions in the city threaten to explode, the body count increases as the press give the murderer a new name: Jack the Ripper.

Opinions: Have you ever finished a book or a film and wondered what would happen if things had turned out differently in the end, if the heroes lost and the villains won? The background of this book is what would happen if Dracula not only survived the events of Bram Stoker's 1897 novel Dracula, but triumphed and fulfilled his evil scheme.
As with the later League of Extraordinary Gentlemen comic and subsequent film, the book collects characters from the full range of Victorian horror and adventure stories, such as Henry Jekyll (from Robert Louis Stevenson's The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde), Doctor Moreau (from H. G. Wells' The Island of Dr. Moreau) and Professor Moriarty (from the Arthur Conan Doyle Sherlock Holmes stories) among many others, as well as real characters and events (such as Oscar Wilde, Joseph Merrick and the Jack the Ripper murders) and characters from numerous vampire books and films (including references to more modern authors such as Stephen King and Anne Rice).
The book is fast paced and hugely entertaining mixing action, gothic horror and political intrigue with dashes of romance. Newman manages to blend numerous characters, references and events into a coherent whole, while also exploring the kind of society which Dracula has created. Newman writes well and his prose is full of wit and vivid, detailed descriptions.
This book is perfect for enjoyable, gruesome entertainment and will provide plenty of fun for vampire fans. It has been followed by three sequels to date.
The novel has recently been republished in paperback with annotations, afterwords, an essay, selections from an unfilmed movie adaptation and a short story.

The Brides of Dracula

Year: 1960
Director: Terence Fisher
Screenplay: Peter Bryan, Edward Percy, Jimmy Sangster and Anthony Hinds (uncredited)
Starring: Peter Cushing, Martita Hunt, Yvonne Monlaur and David Peel
Running Time: 85 minutes
Genre: Horror, supernatural, Hammer Horror

Summary: Transylvania, the late 19th century: Marianne Danielle (Monlaur), a young French schoolteacher, is on her way to take up a job at a girl's school. However, she ends up starnded in a small village. With nowhere else to go she accepts an offer to stay the night at the large castle of the sinister Baroness Meinster (Hunt). During the night Marianne discovers that the Baroness' son (Peel) is chained up in his room, and helps him escape. However, it turns out that the son has a dark secret, as during the following night a young woman in the village is found dead, drained of blood. The locals immediately recognise that a vampire is on the loose and send for the aid of Dr. Van Helsing (Cushing), the only man who was able to defeat the most powerful vampire of all - Count Dracula.

Opinions: This is the first official sequel to Hammer Studios Dracula (1958) which was also directed by Terence Fisher and starred Peter Cushing with a script by Jimmy Sangster. However this lacks one crucial ingredient from the original, and that is Christopher Lee as the Count himself. Dracula does not appear at all in the film, and is only mentioned twice. Lee wouldn't reprise the role of Dracula until Dracula: Prince of Drakness (1966). In this film the role of principal villain is taken by David Peel, who doesn't really make much of an impression. He's kind of bland, and doesn't really have a lot to do until the end. It doesn't help that he looks like a sixties pop star. It's hard to the bloodsucking undead seriously when it looks like he's going to break into "You Were Made for Me" at any moment. However, Peter Cushing was rarely better as Van Helsing than here bringing a strong sense of dignity and gravitas to the part as well as a welcome physicality in the action scenes. Yvonne Monlaur makes for an engaging and attractive lead. As often with the Hammer films the production values are strong, and the film effectively blends action with humour. However some of the techniques haven't aged well, notably the use of "day for night" filming (in which a scene is shot during the day but with a special filter to make it look as if it is taking place at night). Incidentally there is a very brief cameo by Christopher Lee: During the close up of the vampire's eyes towards the end of the film, the eyes are actually Lee's in a clip from Dracula.
This is an enjoyable slice of Hammer Horror and should appeal to fans and newcomers alike.




Filming The Brides of Dracula proved a real pain in the neck for Peter Cushing.