Most people visiting this site will be aware of Christopher Lee’s connection with a certain Lord Of The Undead. After all he did play the part 7 times for Hammer movies and once for Jess Franco. He also narrated and presented a documentary entitled In Search Of Dracula.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Add to this his admiration for Stokers original novel and his despair that no one has faithfully adapted it to the screen (so far) one can understand why the character has held a fascination for many of his fans, including me.
Whilst Hammers original Dracula was a landmark in Christopher Lee’s career as well as launching Hammer films as major players in the worldwide market it was a mixed blessing for its star. Despite many varied movie roles during the Dracula years, the characters’ shadow loomed large and typecast Christopher Lee in the minds of many, including narrow minded producers.
Those days are long gone now and Christopher Lee is well established as one of the most respected and hardest working actors in the world. Star Wars & Lord Of The Rings have brought him to a new generation of filmgoers who were totally unaware of his vampiric past.
Now that all of Christopher Lee’s Dracula films are available on DVD and Dracula has been reissued in cinemas, I though I’d post my personal opinions on each of them
So…….. here goes.
Dracula (Horror Of Dracula)
The first from Hammer and by far the best. From Jimmy Sangster’s lean script to Terence Fishers inspired direction this was the Dracula film fans had been waiting for.
The cleverest touch was having handsome and suave Christopher Lee portray the Count. His entrance as he comes down the stairs and calmly greets Jonathan Harker must have taken 50’s audiences aback. Only later when he displays his true intent in full colour gory glory does the film play its first ace. This is scary stuff indeed and the blood was red for the first time.
Lee is ably supported by long time friend Peter Cushing as Van Helsing. As with Dracula I can’t watch anyone else in the role without thinking “not quite as good “
Yes, it’s not exactly Stokers Dracula but it certainly feels like it. The settings and locations have been trimmed down and changed due to budget constraints and many characters just do not exist for the same reason. None of this matters as the true essence of the tale comes across so well. For good or bad Christopher Lee had made the part his own.
It’s not just my favourite Dracula film but it’s one of my favourite British films of all time. 10/10
Dracula Prince Of Darkness
This may have been the first Hammer Dracula film I saw as a young lad and as such I hold a certain affection for it. Yes it takes almost 40 mins to get to Dracula, yes he has no dialogue and yes the ending may be a bit off (stumbling into the water) but the rest of the film more than makes up for these deficiencies.
The build up works very well as the travellers find themselves guests at Castle Dracula. Barbara Shelly in particular is on top form as she changes from prissy schoolmistress to sexy vampire.
Christopher Lee states that he remained silent during the film because of the awful script. Jimmy Sangster, who wrote the script, maintains that he never wrote any dialogue for Dracula as the character was already established as a monster.
Whatever the reason, having a mute Dracula doesn’t harm the film at all. Especially when played by someone so skilled in mime and gesture as Christopher Lee.
Andrew Keirs character of Father Sandor is a fascinating one and he’s almost as good as Van Helsing as Draculas nemesis. His adventures continued for years in comic book form but his name was changed to Shandor for some reason.
After a long wait for Lee to reprise his role it was worth it……….. a great sequel. 9/10
Dracula Has Risen From The Grave
Freddie Francis sat in the directors’ chair for this one and his background as a cinematographer is the films biggest plus point. His use of filters gives the film a unique look from any other in the series.
He also gives much of the screen time over to the young lovers played by Veronica Carlson & Barry Andrews. Their relationship is at the heart of the picture and it was the beginning of Dracula as almost a secondary character. It’s still a hugely enjoyable film and gives us some marvellous set pieces.
The scene where Dracula is staked and fails to die because a priest will not say a prayer whilst ridiculous is terrifying. It again shows what can be done with a scene when it’s played for all it’s worth. Lee was unhappy with it but when viewed today it comes across as one of the films highlights despite the inaccuracy.
This film also features my favourite Dracula death scene after the original. When the Count fell onto the huge cross at the films finale I was in movie geek heaven.
Stirring stuff indeed. 8/10
Taste The Blood Of Dracula
At the time this movie was being prepared Hammer was considering a new Dracula. One without Christopher Lee. Whether it was down to money or demographics a script was commissioned with Ralph Bates scheduled to appear as Lord Courtney. During a séance Draculas spirit was to inhabit Courtney and Ralph would be the new Dracula.
Thankfully American distributors would have none of it and demanded Christopher Lee or no one.
Good for the fans but not so good for Lee or the Dracula character. The Count was now reduced to appearing now and again as a bogeyman counting off his victims.
What the film does offer however is an interesting tale on Victorian values and hypocrisy. As usual Hammer managed to attract a top notch cast and the film itself is paced to perfection.
Whilst not the best platform for the Dracula character or Christopher Lee’s talents it is, nonetheless, a highly entertaining 90 mins.
7/10
Scars Of Dracula
A strange one this. Whilst it’s the most violent and bloody of the Hammer Draculas, it’s also the most unintentionally funny.
It doesn’t help that it’s also one of the most cheaply made. The rubber bats are a disgrace and the sets look far too neat and new.
The hero played by Dennis Waterman has to be the most boring yet and while Jennie Hanley was pretty she wasn’t much of an actress at all.
As usual Christopher Lee gamely strides through the whole proceedings with an air of authority and purpose sadly lacking in the rest of the production.
Lee gets the chance to speak some Stoker dialogue and the scene of him scaling the castle walls comes across well but that’s about it.
Someone once nicknamed Scars Of Dracula “Carry On Dracula”. I think that sums it up rather nicely.
5/10
Dracula AD1972
The idea to bring the count to modern day London was an interesting one. Unfortunately once there all the script allowed him to do was wander about an abandoned church. That was the main problem with this film but there’s a lot to like.
I know the hip cats as played by Caroline Munro, Christopher Neame and the rest are over the top but that adds to the appeal.
This is a film full of colour, new ideas and a sense of fun. Again Dracula has been reduced to a supporting role but what we do have is the return of Cushing’s’ Van Helsing.
The pre credit sequence featuring a battle to the death between Dracula & Van Helsing is worth the price of the move alone. It’s a great piece of cinema.
Despite Dracula being stuck in a gothic churchyard Lee again conveys menace and loneliness in equal measures. He was already dismayed regarding the character and more so the situations Hammer had placed him in but you would never know from his performance.
This is not a film to be taken too seriously and it’s far from a perfect Dracula film but it is great fun.
8/10
The Satanic Rites Of Dracula
A direct sequel to AD this has a far more interesting premise.
The Count is intent on releasing a plague that will destroy all mankind. In doing so he will destroy his food source. Could this be his attempt at suicide? Maybe, whatever the reason it sets the scene for an enjoyable thriller.
I say thriller because it comes across like an episode of The Avengers but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
The film has many good ideas and set pieces but It could have done with some of the fun element present in AD.
This is a more sombre and well produced movie than its predecessor but it has a cold feeling about it that stops me from emotionally connecting with it.
Top marks to Hammer for finally attempting to give Dracula something interesting to do and to Lee for insisting on a direct lift from Stokers dialogue.
It does feature the worst death scene as Dracula simply trips into a hawthorn bush but thankfully Cushing steps in to drive a fence post in just when needed.
Not the best way for the series to have ended but still a well made addition to the saga.
7/10
Count Dracula (El Conde Dracula)
Jess Franco assembled a dream cast for this attempt at a faithful recreation of Stokers classic tale.
Christopher Lee, Klaus Kinski and Herbert Lom. He also had some wonderful locations. How could he go wrong?
Well, he did. Unfortunately for him and the rest of us, he’s just not a very good director.
I’ve watched this movie a few times and each time I do I try my best to like it.
It just doesn’t work. From the dreadfully slow pace to Franco’s overuse of the zoom lens the whole thing seems amateurish.
It’s a shame because Lee looks the part and there’s a good film struggling to get out.
It just never happens.
An interesting movie but ultimately a wasted opportunity.
4/10
Well folks that’s it from me. A purely personal view. Regardless of the merits of each film one thing remains true. When it comes to playing Dracula, Christopher Lee set the standard by which all other actors will have to try and measure up to.
There have been a few noble attempts since but no one’s come close and I don’t think anyone will.
Re: The Dracula Saga
Very interesting read Matt. Of course "Horror Of Dracula" is by far, the best and stands on it's own as a "Horror" classic. The casting was perfect, and atmosphere, suitably menacing. Mr Lee, as you say was perfect for the role, and I agree with you, no one has come close since, though I did enjoy Frank Langella's interpretation of him. Of the sequels, "Prince of Darkness" is one I enjoy the most, if that is the right word. I have to say that I would not be saddened if none of the sequels had ever been made, and can take or leave them. Like yourself, I rather morbidly enjoyed his demise at the end of "Dracula has Risen From The Grave". A glorious death scene. But for style, panache, and inventiveness, again his original death scene at the hands of Peter Cushing was wonderful cinema.
The only later sequel I can really just about enjoy, is "Dracula AD 1972", and this is really only because Mr Lee and his old friend Peter are sparring again.
It really is a testament to the talents of Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, etc, that these films and their lesser sequels still shine brightly in the eye's of their many fans, and are readily available to watch over and over again. God Bless em all, no matter how tall or short, big or small.
Cheers!
Re: The Dracula Saga
Scars of Dracula is in my opinion a very underrated Dracula film.This is my marks out of ten for all the films.
HORROR OF DRACULA 9
DRACULA PRINCE OF DARKNESS 5
DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE 7
TASTE THE BLOOD OF DRACULA 8
SCARS OF DRACULA 8
DRACULA AD1972 6
THE SATANIC RITES OF DRACULA 5
Re: The Dracula Saga
The First and only Dracula film of Christopher Lee's that I have seen in it's entirety is AD 1972.
I was in middle school, and I would stay up late during Summer break to watch old horror flicks on a channel called encore (which no longer exists).
It has never crossed my mind, even as a young child that Christopher Lee is Dracula or even a Vampire. I would always wonder how Hammer's Dracula would always get such young women so far behind his age. (Talk about an understatement!)
I've seen a little bit of The Satanic Rites, but I think my favorite part was when that one guy dropped the vile of that substance which ate his skin away (or something!).
I'd skip around the movie a lot.
Re: The Dracula Saga
I, too, have tried to like Jess Franco's film "Count Dracula", but it is impossible. You would think that with Lee, Herbert Lom and Klaus Kinski all together in one film, the results would be better. But the truth is, this is just a terrible film. The script is often ludicrous in the extreme and does not follow Stoker's text as promised. Van Helsing stays in London and isn't even involved in Dracula's death which is nothing like the book. Lee is great as Dracula (well, duh!!!), but he always is. Herbert Lom is a big disappointment as Van Helsing, but in all fairness, this is really more the scripts fault than his. As for Franco's direction, I think the reviewer for CINEFANTASTIQUE said it best, when it isn't completely lifeless, its incredibly zoom happy. As with the Fu Manchu films, this was an incredible opportunity wasted.
Re: The Dracula Saga
Matt: your observation is great! In my opinion, Dracula´s Saga is one of the best works of Master Lee! Maybe Sir Christopher doesn´t like his Dracula´s role anymore...but He must understands that his Dracula was, is and will be very important in his career likes it or not.
All the best!
Christian
Re: The Dracula Saga
Matt,
The first of Mr.Lee's Dracula portrayals that I saw was of course,Horror of Dracula
which holds a special place in my heart.
One reason is that the first two occasions I tried to watch it on television the power
went out due to thunder storms (talk about atmosphere).These occasions were
several years apart.
Finally,I did get to view the entire movie and being at an impressionable age
it scared the heck out of me,so I slept with the light on for a week !
Re: The Dracula Saga
Gary Gladney;40180 wrote:
One reason is that the first two occasions I tried to watch it on television the power went out due to thunder storms (talk about atmosphere).
Now that IS spooky! Out of all the Hammer series, I think the best Dracula films were the first two (Dracula and Dracula: Prince of Darkness). The subsequent ones seemed to grow progressively worse, although Mr Lee is always able to give an impressive performance, in spite of being hampered by such poor scripts. Jesús Franco's film starts off promisingly enough, but sadly the quality wanes after the first 30 minutes or so. Still, at least the physical portrayal of Dracula remains faithful to the book (i.e. as an old man with white moustache growing younger). An interesting "companion piece" to this is Cuadecuc Vampir (Pere Portabella) which was made at the same time as El Conde Drácula and is a kind of surreal "behind the scenes" look at the shooting of Franco's film, or, more precisely, an attempt at a self-reflexive view of the art of cinematography. Well worth a look if you can find it. I'm in the middle of watching the documentary "In Search of Dracula" and it's very interesting so far. Anyway, take care everyone:
Warmest regards,
Andrés
Note: I subsequently came across a webpage which discusses Cuadecuc Vampir. I should point out, however, that the text is written in Spanish, although the page does contain a couple of nice stills from the film itself, for those of you who might be interested in seeing them. Moreover, there is a small video clip lasting just over 5 mins which includes footage from the film. Here is the link: [url=http://www.adn.es/cultura/20080730/NWS-1403-cine-pere-portabella-vampir-cuadecuc.html]Cultura y Ocio - As (For some reason the link does not seem to copy into the post properly, therefore I would suggest cutting and pasting it into the address bar in order to access it).
Re: The Dracula Saga
Andrés Verdú;40228 wrote:
Now that IS spooky! Out of all the Hammer series, I think the best Dracula films were the first two (Dracula and Dracula: Prince of Darkness). The subsequent ones seemed to grow progressively worse, although Mr Lee is always able to give an impressive performance, in spite of being hampered by such poor scripts. Jesús Franco's film starts off promisingly enough, but sadly the quality wanes after the first 30 minutes or so. Still, at least the physical portrayal of Dracula remains faithful to the book (i.e. as an old man with white moustache growing younger). An interesting "companion piece" to this is Cuadecuc Vampir (Pere Portabella) which was made at the same time as El Conde Drácula and is a kind of surreal "behind the scenes" look at the shooting of Franco's film, or, more precisely, an attempt at a self-reflexive view of the art of cinematography. Well worth a look if you can find it. I'm in the middle of watching the documentary "In Search of Dracula" and it's very interesting so far. Anyway, take care everyone:
Warmest regards,
Andrés
Note: I subsequently came across a webpage which discusses Cuadecuc Vampir. I should point out, however, that the text is written in Spanish, although the page does contain a couple of nice stills from the film itself, for those of you who might be interested in seeing them. Moreover, there is a small video clip lasting just over 5 mins which includes footage from the film. Here is the link: [url=http://www.adn.es/cultura/20080730/NWS-1403-cine-pere-portabella-vampir-cuadecuc.html]Cultura y Ocio - As (For some reason the link does not seem to copy into the post properly, therefore I would suggest cutting and pasting it into the address bar in order to access it).
Voy a ver si me sale colocar el enlace con la información:
http://www.adn.es/cultura/20080730/NWS-1403-cine-pere-portabella-vampir-cuadecuc.html
espero que se pueda ver la web.
Re: The Dracula Saga
¡Gracias por tu ayuda, Luzmila! Ahora sí se puede llegar a la página con el enlace que has colocado (al menos para mi funciona el enlace que has colocado). No entiendo muy bien por que a mi me ha fallado al intentarlo. Bueno, a seguir bien:
Saludos,
Andrés
Re: The Dracula Saga
Ithink of Bela Lugoai, when Dracula comes to mind. Like Mr. lee , lugosi was typecast after he played the count, and had to do numerous "Dracula Meets the Werewolf's Grandson" tyope of films. While Lee was able to break away from being typecast, Legosi, because iof his accent and the Depression, was unable to do so.Lugosi dioied before Lee's first performance. I often wonder if Lee watched Lugosi performance as the Count before taking the role. I think he did, as the film was a classic of the horror genre even then.
Re: The Dracula Saga
Nicholas Morrell;40250 wrote:
I often wonder if Lee watched Lugosi performance as the Count before taking the role. I think he did, as the film was a classic of the horror genre even then.
I think I recall hearing/reading somewhere that Mr Lee had not seen Bela Lugosi's interpretation of Dracula before he played the part himself, Nicholas, although I might very well be wrong. I just seem to have that recollection in my mind. I'll check a few sources and if I find any quotes one way or the other I'll post back on this for you. In the meantime, if anyone else has information one way or the other and would like to post on it, it would be really helpful. Take care:
Warmest regards,
Andrés
Re: The Dracula Saga
Hello again,
Further to your comment about wondering whether Mr Lee watched Bela Lugosi's performance as Count Dracula before playing the role himself, Nicholas, here is a quote from Lord of Misrule:
"I'd seen Karloff as the Monster and Rathbone as Evrémonde, but in this instance I'd not seen the original, Bela Lugosi's Dracula of 1930. I delibereately chose not to, to avoid being influenced. I didn't even know at that time that the legend was based on a real and horrendous historical personage, Vlad Tsepesh, known as the Impaler. I decided that my source would be Bram Stoker's novel, and I read it twice. It was about a vampire not at all like me in physical character, but there were aspects of him with which I could readily identify - his extraordinary stillness, punctuated by bouts of manic energy with feats of strength belying his appearance; his power complex; the quality of being done for but undead; and by no means least the fact that he was an embarrassing member of a great and noble family."
_________________________________________
Lee, Christopher, Lord of Misrule: The Autobiography of Christopher Lee, (London, England: Orion Books Ltd., 2003), p. 176.
Anyway, there we have it in Mr Lee's own words. I suppose that, in this way, Mr Lee was able to bring his own imaginative re-interpretation of Stoker's text towards developing his performance of the character without having to worry about bringing in anything extraneous from the 1930 Universal version. Take care everyone:
Warmest regards,
Andrés
Re: The Dracula Saga
Just to add to what you just said. In a audio response from Mr Lee many years ago when we as members could ask questions to Mr Lee I asked him who he thinks is the best. And in that response he did say he saw the Universal film many years after he did "Horror of Dracula".
Re: The Dracula Saga
Slightly off topic but as Bela's been mentioned. I love his interpretation. Yes it's hammy by todays standards but it's no less iconic for that.
I obviously prefer Lee's Dracula but Lous Jordans perormance comes in a close second for me. The less said about Oldmans effort the better.
Re: The Dracula Saga
I agree Matt. I watched the original Bela Lugosi Dracula a few weeks back. As you say it is very hammy, and also extremely tame, compared to today's standards..... which in some ways, isn't a bad thing.
Their are some genuinely creepy moments in this film though... for it's time.
I remembered watching the Louis Jordan version years ago, and recall it being very well played by him. I recently bought this version on dvd and still think so today. I did enjoy Frank Langella's interpretation of him, and I believe the film stays relatively faithful to the book.
Re: The Dracula Saga
Vlad Tepich was not the only insipration for Dracula- Elizabeth bathori the "blood Countess" was also used. she ended up having between 600-800 women killed, the exact number isn't known, and bathed in their blood believing doing so would keep her young and beautiful forever.. Bartoti was of the nobility so she could not be executed, as her accomplices were when the matter was evealed.However, as punishment, She was walled up inside her castle and died a couple years later.
Re: The Dracula Saga
Nicholas Morrell;40341 wrote:
Vlad Tepich was not the only insipration for Dracula- Elizabeth bathori the "blood Countess" was also used.
Absolutely, Nicholas. The documentary "In Search of Dracula" (for which Mr Lee not only provides the narration, but also plays both Vlad Tsepesh and Stoker's Count Dracula) examines both historical figures, Vlad Tsepesh and Countess Báthory, as well as tracing the roots of the legend of the "vampire" itself. The documentary also notes several more immediate literary antecedents: John Polidori's The Vampyre (published in 1819) which introduced the first vampire count in English literature, Lord Ruthven (said to be based on Lord Byron), and Sheridan Le Fanu's Carmilla (1871) being perhaps the most prominent examples. It is abundantly clear that Stoker drew from a multitude of sources for his book. Take care everyone:
Warmest regards,
Andrés
Re: The Dracula Saga
Tepich was undoubtedly a bloodthristy, cruel man, however he was never accused of being a vampire,in his lifetime, even by the Turks who were his moortal enemy. Stokers story however tied his namer forever to vampires.Dracul translated means "son of the dragon"/ Bathory, by contrast could be considered a real vampire, since she killed girls fior their blood, bathed in it and drank it.
Re: The Dracula Saga
The name "Dracula" in Romanian can mean both "son of the dragon" or "son of the devil". Vlad Tsepesh (i.e. Vlad III) inherited the name Dracula from his father, Vlad II Dracul. In medieval Wallachian, the suffix "a" denotes "son of" - hence Dracula = son of Dracul (Dracul meaning dragon or demon/devil). Vlad II acquired the sobriquet Dracul when he was invested in the chivalric Order of the Dragon by the Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund in 1431, and the title subsequently passed to his eldest surviving son, Vlad III (who became Vlad Dracula).
While the name "Dracula" may not have been linked to the vampires of folklore before Bram Stoker's book, one can also see how Vlad Dracula would have appealed to Stoker as he was one of the most notorious historical rulers of the location he had chosen for much of the story. Therefore, Vlad Dracula must have seemed an ideal choice as an inspiration or basis on which to develop a fictional character of aristocratic yet dark ancestry. I think it is fair to say that the literary Count Dracula is a composite character, inspired by a great many different sources.
One final note on the subject of the obsession with and consumption of blood, I understand that there were historical reports (mainly from the Saxons) which claimed that Vlad Dracula mopped up the blood of the impaled corpses with bread as part of the meals he ate in the presence of his victims (there are also suggestions of cannibalism). There is even a famous woodcut illustration of such a scene. Whether these accounts were actual fact or exaggerations, it is quite possible that Stoker may have either read them or heard about them from other sources which would also go some way towards establishing the link between Vlad Dracula and the idea of a vampire in his mind (or, at the very least, a bloodthirsty and ruthless man, as Nicholas says). This obsession with blood is referred to by criminologists as "haematomania". There is a very interesting book called Vlad the Impaler: In Search of the Real Dracula, by M J Trow, which analyses these elements in great detail and is well worth reading for those who are interested in the subject. Anyway, food for thought. Take care everyone:
Warmest regards,
Andrés
Re: The Dracula Saga
Yes Vlad did dine among the forest of impaled victims. Whether or not he dipped his bread in the blood of his victims, is hard to say. that woodcutting shows him sitting at table, amongst hundreds of impaled victims, eating. It was featured on a show about vampires, Bathory was also featured.impaling was a very slow means of execution, the victim could linger for hours or days before dying, every minute an agony. this was intentional, on Vlad's part, to show a message to his enemies , of which there were many.. "cross me, and this is your fate".
Re: The Dracula Saga
Nicholas Morrell;40374 wrote:
Yes Vlad did dine among the forest of impaled victims. Whether or not he dipped his bread in the blood of his victims, is hard to say. that woodcutting shows him sitting at table, amongst hundreds of impaled victims, eating.
Well, that's assuming that the woodcutting (and the reports) are "truly" representative of what actually happened, as opposed to being pieces of negative propaganda levelled against Vlad Dracula by his enemies. The book I mentioned in my previous post argues, for instance, that in some of the more fanciful accounts of Vlad Tsepesh's acts of cruelty and barbarism, the enormous statistics given for the number of people supposed to have been impaled (or otherwise killed) are simply not realistic (i.e. it would have been physically impossible to have slaughtered so many people, given the conditions outlined in several specific cases presented in the book of the more extravagant nature).
Depending on which historical document one consults, different figures emerge, which is not surprising when one reflects upon the supposed purpose or intention of these accounts. For example, if one wanted to present a totally depraved image of someone, then the larger the number of victims and the more gruesome the descriptions, the more shocking the figure would be. This could have been somewhat of a double-edged sword, in the sense that it might have worked both to Vlad Dracula's advantage (in presenting him as a ruthless monster who knew no bounds to his cruelty, his reputation would have inspired an awful fear in his enemies) and to his detriment (by distorting and denigrating his character, portraying him as more monstrous than he actually was). One should also bear in mind that medieval chroniclers, who were not always eyewitnesses of the events they reported on, would often embellish numbers for effect. For instance, they might claim that a particular hero had killed a thousand men in the course of a single battle which is simply not credible given the weapons of the time.
Whether the accounts were accurate or overblown (there is no way of verifying how many people Vlad actually slaughtered), if Bram Stoker read the more gory descriptions (such as those speaking of cannibalism and the consumption of blood) then it is easier to understand how the connection in his mind between Vlad and the notion of a bloodthirsty vampire might have been made. Take care everyone:
Warmest regards,
Andrés
Re: The Dracula Saga
You also need to include this other theory.
Bram Stoker was born the third of seven children, in Dublin, to a civil servant, Abraham Stoker, and to Charlotte Thornley (20 years his father's junior). After suffering a long yet mysterious childhood illness, Stoker went to Trinity College, Dublin. While at Trinity College, in 1876 he met Henry Irving, a well known actor of the day for whom Stoker would eventually end up spending 27 years working as publicist and theater manager.
Sir Henry Irving was a gay actor and theatre owner, and Bram became his personal secretary, following him to London. According to the Irish documentary Dracula's Bram Stoker (2003), Stoker's papers and letters reveal that, although married, the writer secretly loved men (he wrote love letters to the gay U.S. poet Walt Whitman), and that he had became obsessed with Irving. Journalist, drama critic and editor with The Evening Mail, he is the author of eighteen books, including his famous 1897 novel Dracula, which became the inspiration of countless films, plays, even a Royal Winnipeg Ballet production and resulting Guy Maddin film, Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary. Some experts now believe that Irving, a very dominant personality, was actually Stoker's inspiration for Count Dracula.
Re: The Dracula Saga
That's the one I would go for Juan. That documentary often pops up on the Biography channel and makes a very good case.
Cheers, Matt
Juan Aneiros;40379 wrote:
You also need to include this other theory.Bram Stoker was born the third of seven children, in Dublin, to a civil servant, Abraham Stoker, and to Charlotte Thornley (20 years his father's junior). After suffering a long yet mysterious childhood illness, Stoker went to Trinity College, Dublin. While at Trinity College, in 1876 he met Henry Irving, a well known actor of the day for whom Stoker would eventually end up spending 27 years working as publicist and theater manager.
Sir Henry Irving was a gay actor and theatre owner, and Bram became his personal secretary, following him to London. According to the Irish documentary Dracula's Bram Stoker (2003), Stoker's papers and letters reveal that, although married, the writer secretly loved men (he wrote love letters to the gay U.S. poet Walt Whitman), and that he had became obsessed with Irving. Journalist, drama critic and editor with The Evening Mail, he is the author of eighteen books, including his famous 1897 novel Dracula, which became the inspiration of countless films, plays, even a Royal Winnipeg Ballet production and resulting Guy Maddin film, Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary. Some experts now believe that Irving, a very dominant personality, was actually Stoker's inspiration for Count Dracula.
Re: The Dracula Saga
Juan Aneiros;40379 wrote:
You also need to include this other theory.[...]
Some experts now believe that Irving, a very dominant personality, was actually Stoker's inspiration for Count Dracula.
A good point. I would say that Sir Henry Irving was definitely one of the inspirations for the character of Count Dracula, especially as regards his physical appearance and mannerisms. Apparently, Bram Stoker hoped that Irving would play Dracula on the stage, although Irving never agreed to this. Moreover, in his capacity as Irving's manager, Stoker accompanied the actor on theatrical tours, and holidayed with him in Whitby (Yorkshire), where a great part of the story is set. Anyway, interesting thoughts. Take care everyone:
Warmest regards,
Andrés
Re: The Dracula Saga
Check out this very positive, new, review of Dracula AD72 on Harry Knowles' website.
Re: The Dracula Saga
Matt Gemmell;40389 wrote:
Check out this very positive, new, review of Dracula AD72 on Harry Knowles' website.
Thanks for the link to that review, Matt! Really interesting, and I especially agree with the comments made in reference to Peter Cushing and his acting abilities. I have noticed how in many of the films he worked in (including a few less than wonderful ones, to put it kindly) Mr Cushing takes some of the worst dialogue ever committed to paper and delivers it with such sincerity, conviction and presence that it seems as though he is reciting Shakespeare. I think that one of the reasons he excelled as an actor was his professionalism and dedication to the projects he worked on, always evident whether it was a big budget film or a more modest production. I have some recordings of news items from the time Peter Cushing passed away and a film critic argued that one reason why Mr Cushing was not knighted was probably because of his "association" with "horror" films (despite the fact that he was actually a very versatile performer who became a household name in Britain for his television work years before he ever worked on his first Hammer film). With all this in mind, I find myself agreeing with the reviewer words: "Cushing isn’t showy, which is why I think he’s criminally overlooked as an actor.[...] It’s mini-masterpiece of a performance, but in a small scene in a Hammer exploitation picture." Very true, and rather sad. Anyway, thanks again. Take care everyone:
Warmest regards,
Andrés
Re: The Dracula Saga
"Very true, and rather sad"
I agree with your comments apart from the one above Andres. Cushing didn't seek the so called high brow roles that others, including lesser actors have gone for.
He was delighted to be associatted with these films and reveled in his research and rehersal. He was often interviewed regarding his horror films and he always gleefuly replied that he loved making them and adored the fans.
It's one of the many reasons he was one of the last true gentelmen of the screen.
Re: The Dracula Saga
Indeed, Matt. I will just clarify - what I was actually trying to get at by my comment was my sadness that the kind of film that made Peter Cushing (and a great deal of other actors) internationally famous is looked down upon by certain circles within the "media and Arts world" (for want of a better term). I know that Mr Cushing strongly maintained that he would rather work in a film people actually wanted to see rather than something more "highbrow" that would only appeal to a select few, and I certainly agree with the sentiment. My grievance really lies with those within the establishment who failed to recognise and acknowledge Mr Cushing's talent more fully. I believe that had Peter Cushing not worked in "horror" films (or fantasy to use the term he preferred) he would most probably have received a knighthood and achieved something closer to the critical acclaim and artistic reputation of some of his contemporaries such as Laurence Olivier, John Gielgud, Ralph Richardson, and John Mills (who themselves were not above appearing in the odd "horror" film). On the other hand, the world would have lost many of the best performances in that genre of the second half of the 20th century, so perhaps the lack of an "official seal of approval" is the price to pay for an overall impressive body of work. So, in short, what I think is rather sad is the unfair prejudice attached to actors who worked making the kind of films we've been discussing. Anyway, I hope this clears things up. Take care everyone:
Warmest regards,
Andrés
Re: The Dracula Saga
Well, although I alomost agree with you, I think it is not fair to give Scars of Dracula 5 compared to The Satanic Rits. In my opinion it is a very enjoyable film, shure with a low budjet. But I prefer a cheap but entertaining flick. For me, TSROD is a crazy and unlogical waste of time. Except the ending, there is nothing interesting. And if you like such films watch James Bond ;)But great work, and I loved your idea of reviewing all the Drac-Pix.Thanks a lot!