Dracula (1958) – 3/5

World’s most favorite vampire in the 1950s

„Dracula“ or also „Horror of Dracula“ is a British live action film from 1958, so this one has its 65th anniversary this year already and this old age also means that you will sadly not find many people at all who worked on this film and are still alive. If any at all. Oh yes, there is Janina Faye, the girl who played Tanya and she was only 10 at that point and a successful child actress. But with the grown-ups not much of a chance. Anyway, the director here is Terence Fisher and just like his writer Jimmy Sangster they have quite a history of films that can be called horror or at least include some massive threats and thrills. Fisher was over 20 years older than Sangster at that point though and the latter was just around the age of 30. For both, this could be their most known work and the fact that this film is still finding awards consideration in 2020 is as self-explanatory as the fact that this film is still shown in movie theaters nowadays, even in theaters outside of England, so many decades later. I mean this was from slightly over a decade after the end of World War II. This is pretty self-explanatory how old it is. For the late 1950s, it should also not be taken for granted that this movie is in color because 50s were really full-on black-and-white usually. I watched this on the occasion of a vampire-themed film series here in my city and it was only shown this one time, so I decided to take the chance and I don’t regret it. Of course, it is the film’s subject that is a main reason why people remember this film, but I will get to that in a second. For now, it can also be said that the cast is also working in favor of the film to not be forgotten. Of course, the title character is played by the iconic Christopher Lee. He was part of so many famous franchises like Lord of the Rings, James Bond and he also played Dracula in other films. It is also not the only time he played this iconic character in a Terence Fisher film. Michael Gough plays a supporting character here and many probably remember him for playing Alfred in the old Batman movies.

The first credit went to Peter Cushing though. This is fairly telling because the film was not named after his character, but also the way we see his name promoted during the opening credits and also on the poster we can assume that he was the bigger star back then compared to Lee. Okay, we see Lee on the poster, but the position of the names almost indicates that it is Cushing that is depicted there. Of course, we do know better. The poster is a bit misleading anyway as we also see Lee smile there while being in character, but did he smile once throughout the entire film? I am not sure. This was not for the laughs at all, but a genuinely dramatic depiction of the Dracula story. The one again based on the novel by Bram Stoker of course, who did not live to see the cinematic success his character would have until deep into the 21st century. There were maybe only two or three funny moments in this film here and those included characters that were really in it for one scene only. How they bribed the one guy was pretty hilarious or rather his reaction and another scene I liked was when the comedy came from a rather verbal approach when we find out about a man who came to pay his tribute to somebody else, but ended up dead himself. Does not sound too funny, but the way this story was told to us, it was kinda funny. Another thing that felt almost comically absurd by today’s standards, but was really meant in a serious fashion back then I believe, was how women are treated in this film. Like you could say that we had a male character slap some sense into a female protagonist here on one occasion. Literally in fact. Today, they would not get away with this so easily, especially as it was the main character even, not Dracula, but the one we were supposed to see as strong and likable. Then there is another occasion very early on when we have a minor male character bark orders in a very unfriendly way, loud and rude, at a female worker. Could have been his daughter even. I don’t remember precisely. I am surely not somebody who supports exaggerated feminism the way many support it nowadays and I am definitely 100% against fake political correctness, but these two scenes stayed in my mind nonetheless.

Anyway, this was a fairly exaggerated film at times also with the audio. The music especially felt very loud here compared to the talking. It was almost sound effects and not music anymore. A mix between the two maybe. I have seen several Dracula movies in the last couple weeks or months even and this one here is not as short as the very old Bela Lugosi film, but at minimally over 80 minutes only, it is among the shorter films for sure as well. So it is no surprise at all that we are thrown right into the story here then. Jonathan is on his journey to Dracula’s castle right away, but there are very crucial differences in this segment compared to all other films. He does not want to sell a new home to Dracula, but he is there as a librarian to work for him and he gets the job and also it is all a disguise as he seems to know very well what Dracula is about and he wants to kill him, but comes short mostly due to a fateful encounter with Dracula’s female prisoner that could be the closest to Dracula’s wife or wives the way you see her/them in other projects. There is also only this one woman there we find out about. Also, Dracula’s castle here does not look super creepy, even beautiful from the outside, so Harker tells us about the drop in temperature there to get the meaning across that it is indeed a very scary place. These scenes from the castle are almost a segment of its own and just vaguely connected with the rest. Harker manages to kill the aforementioned female, but he is murdered by Dracula immediately afterwards. We do not see anything graphic there, but it is obvious. Also with what Van Helsing tells us afterwards. Van Helsing is a lead here. The character is barely included in the Herzog movie and of course there is Anthony Hopkins playing him more recently, but the amount of Helsing’s screen time and impact here is unmatched. It turns almost into a duel between him and Dracula.

In the process, we also learn a lot about the issue at hand. Compared to the old black-and-white film I mentioned earlier, it can also be said that they are doing away with some of the myths, at least the one that Dracula is (or vampires in general are) able to transform into rats, bats, wolves etc. This is not a factor here. However, they include some other ideas, like basically herbs that help keeping the vampire away. The biggest anti-vampire component here, however, is the Cross. It is included on quite a few occasions and it felt a bit like a religious movie. There was very boastful talk about good vs. Evil and Jesus Christ or the Lord was mentioned too. The Christian component and a satanic connection perhaps even for Dracula was such a strong factor like you will not find it in any other films. This also includes what the Cross does to vampires. We do not really see the shape of the Cross being literally burned into their flesh in other films from what I remember. I may be wrong there. The women here do get it indeed and one also dies, but the female protagonist (or it turns out she becomes the female protagonist eventually) in the end is saved and there is a somewhat happy ending. At least happier than you usually get it with Dracula films. It still must be said that women here are either helpless or stupid most of the time and it is men who reign supreme and they have to get things back in order when females are messing up. How times have changed. For the better? You decide. But it was strong alpha males like Cushing’s Van Helsing paving the way here story-wise. It was almost a bit too much how the maybe biggest male supporting character warms up to Van Helsing and accepts his expertise at some point. The dialogue writing there was a bit cringeworthy.

Overall, I would say this is a good Dracula film and I enjoyed parts of it and the rare comedy was so good that it was almost a pity that there was not more of that. Christopher Lee is also always nice to see in his roles for sure, even if I still think that Dracula is a character that is never too actor-friendly and really difficult to turn into a memorable performance that goes beyond the style of the character. It is telling that they really rather turned Cushing’s Helsing into the main character overall in this battle of good vs. Evil. The shades were not really there. That’s it then I assume, not much else to say, except that the girls here were really beautiful. With all the negative I stated female-wise from this film, there is no denying to that. One character (or actress) reminded me almost a bit of Judy Garland from „The Wizard of Oz“ with her looks and dress. Okay, I am drifting away now, so I guess this is really it then. I give the outcome of this old, but by far not oldest version of the Dracula tale a thumbs-up. That was here and there a bit in doubt maybe and it is closer to a mediocre film than to a great one without a doubt, but the positive recommendation is something I do not hesitate to give here. These Dracula films all have their charm I would say, each one for different reasons though. Some nice attention to detail here, like look at how one female character looks at a male character’s neck very briefly on one occasion. Also, the visual side was definitely a strength here. Look at the costumes and set decoration here. The make-up too. That moment in the end when Dracula is defeated was insane. You have never seen it this graphic elsewhere. There it really turned into a drastic horror movie. They did wisely to keep this as a highlight for the end and not show it in similar fashion when the female vampire is killed early on for example. Time to stop now, go see it. Also worth it on the small screen.